Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010232262025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3433/2025 CHAMPAK KUMAR BORA SON OF SRI CHANDRA KANTA BORA RESIDENT OF SENCHOWA, PS NAGAON, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, S YESMIN,MR KUTUB ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR M RAHMAN (FOR INFORMANT),MR M H AHMED (FOR INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 07.11.2025 Heard Ms. S. Yesmin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel appears for the informant. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Champak Kumar Bora seeking bail in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No.762/2025 under Sections 319(2)/316(2)/308(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegations as contained in the FIR are that on 24.09.2025 the complainant Jitendra Kalita, S/O- LI. Golok Ch. Kalita, R/O- Amolapatty. P.S., Dist Nagaon (Assam) lodged a written FIR at SSP Office, Nagaon stating that the No.2 FIR named accused person namely Nilmani Nath is his acquaintance person and the No.2 accused person introduced with him the No.1 accused person named Champak Kumar Bora as an officer of railway department. Both the accused persons met with about 40 people and promised to give jobs in the railway department. Accordingly, the No.1 accused person took Rs. 50,00,000/- (fifty lakh) from him and No.2 accused person took Rs. 30,50,000/-(thirty lakh fifty thousand) from him at his house. But, the accused persons did not give them any job due to which he asked the both accused persons to return the money. But, the accused persons made excuses. Moreover, the accused persons had been threatening to kill him by bullet, while he asked the accused persons to return the money. The accused persons took Rs. 80,50,000/- from him by cheating him and embezzled the whole amount. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has spent 41 days in custody and the prayer for bail may be considered on account of the length of detention. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the present accused person had fraudulently obtained money on the promise of Page No.# 3/3 securing jobs in the Railway Department, not only from the present victim but also from many others, as revealed by the Case Diary and the amount involved is also huge. 6. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the incriminating material available in the Case Diary, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. 7. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant