Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010229482025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3342/2025 SRI SANTOSH GUPTA S/O- SRI RAM CHANDRA GUPTA , RESIDENT OF- 2 NO MATHGHARIA , SHANTI PATH , HOUSE NO. 19, PS- NOONMATI , DIST- KAMRUP (M) , ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P JAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 28-10-2025 Heard Mr. P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for release of the petitioner namely, Sri Santosh Gupta, on bail in connection with Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 68/2025 under Section 3(5)/316(4)/318(3)/344 of BNS, 2023. Page No.# 2/3 The allegation made against the petitioner is that on 21.08.2025 the informant Arun Kundalia, General Manager of 4Aces Retail Private Limited Address Zoo road Tiniali opposite AIDC Guwahati lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Geetanagar Police Station alleging inter alia that 4Aces Retail Private Limited is a company engaged in the sale of Royal Enfield motorcycles and allied products from its registered office in Guwahati. The accused persons, Mr. Vishal Jain, employed Accountant, and Mr. Santosh Gupta, employed as Cashier, were entrusted with fiduciary responsibilities in relation to the company's finances. Their duties included receiving payments from customers, issuing receipts, maintaining financial records, and depositing the collected amounts into the company's designated bank accounts. On 19.08.2025, during an internal financial review, serious irregularities were detected. Scrutiny of records revealed that the accused, acting in collusion and with dishonest and intention, had diverted misappropriated customer monies instead of depositing them with the company. The preliminary assessment indicated a misappropriation of approximately Rs. 25,00,000/-, though the extent of the fraud may be much higher, warranting a detailed investigation and audit. The modus operandi adopted by the accused included diverting funds received from customers for their own gain, falsifying ledgers and accounts, withholding or destroying receipts, and Manipulating financial records to conceal the fraud. Their conduct demonstrates Premeditated dishonesty, a clear breach of the trust reposed in them, and deliberate falsification of the company's accounts. By these acts, the accused have committed grave financial offences amounting to dishonest misappropriation of funds, criminal breach of trust by employees, cheating, embezzlement, and falsification of accounts. Their actions have caused wrongful loss to the company and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves, in addition to severely damaging the company's reputation and financial stability. It is submitted that the accused persons be proceeded against under the relevant provisions of law, and the complainant company undertakes to provide all cooperation, including documents, audit reports, and witnesses, to assist in the investigation and prosecution of this case. Initially, the Officer-in-charge of Geetanagar P.S. received the same vide G.D.E. 13 dated 21.08.2025. Subsequently, thereafter the officer-in-charge of Geetanagar P.S. Case on 01.09.2025, registered a case being Geetanagar P.S. Case No. 68/2025 U/S 3(5)/316(4)/318(3)/344 of BNS, 2023. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after registration of the FIR on 21.08.2025, he was called to the police station and every time he appeared regularly and was cooperating. But despite that, he was arrested although the offence is punishable with seven years imprisonment only and the investigation agency also failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35(3) BNSS as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar –vs- State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. Page No.# 3/3 It is further submitted that the reasons for non-compliance with the aforesaid provisions are also not tenable inasmuch as, the petitioner is no longer an employee of the informant and has no access to the office of his employer. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case involves misappropriation of huge amount of Rs.25 lakhs and some money is yet to be recovered and accordingly, submits that the petitioner should not be granted bail at this stage. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the case is based on documentary evidences and the relevant documents have been seized by the police and it also appears that the petitioner no longer has any access to the office of the informant, which may allow him to tamper with the evidence. The petitioner was arrested on 11.09.2025 and he spent 48 days in custody and therefore, his further custodial detention may not be required for the purpose of further investigation. This Court after hearing the counsel appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the materials available on record is of the considered opinion that further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may not be required for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present petitioner. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Elaka Magistrate, the accused petitioner named above be enlarged on bail in connection with the aforesaid case subject to the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall not try to hamper or tamper with the evidence whatsoever in the instant case; ii) the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and he will make himself present before the Investigating Authority as and when required or called for by the Investigating Authority. With the above observation and direction, bail application stands disposed of. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant