Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010265432025 2025:GAU-AS:16945 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3871/2025 SRI DIPANKAR DEB SON OF SRI DILIP DEB, RESIDENT OF SRIPURIA NETAJI ROAD, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT - TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN - 786125. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SAILENDRA DEKA, MS L RONGPIPI,MR JITENDRA DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. N HASAN (INFORMANT) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 08.12.2025 Heard Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent and the learned Page No.# 2/3 counsel for the informant. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused petitioner, namely, Dipankar Deb praying for grant of bail in connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 392/2025, under Sections 306/318(3)/318(4)/ 314/316(3)316(4)/316(5)/61(2) of BNS, 2023. The petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2025. 3. The gist of the allegation in the FIR dated 09.11.2025 is that a significant portion of goods that were kept in the warehouse to be delivered to Unilever company were not found, amounting to approx Rs. 1 crore and that the present accused petitioner was the Supervisor of the said warehouse and it is alleged that he has misappropriated the said amount. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that at this stage he is not so much on merits and contends that perhaps the statutory notices required at the time of arrest may not have been furnished properly. 5. The Addl. P.P. submits that on the basis of the case diary that the investigation has revealed implicating materials against the petitioner. 6. The learned petitioner counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since his arrest and during this time, he has also been in police remand for five days and during which, he was custodialy examined. 7. The learned counsel for the informant supporting the prayer of the prosecution and opposing the bail also contends that the as per their instruction, the petitioner has misappropriated the entire amount and that they are facing pressure from the Unilever company to deliver the missing goods and they are facing difficulties on account of that. 8. It is submitted by the prosecution as well as the learned counsel for Page No.# 3/3 informant that allegedly missing goods are not yet recovered. 9. I have produced the relevant portions of the case diary and I find that the arrest memo as well as the notices under Section 47/48 of BNSS have enumerated eight grounds of arrest detailing the circumstances. 10. In my considered opinion, the notices in the instant case would meet the requirements under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. The IO has filed the bail objection strongly objecting to the grant of the bail. Investigation is stated to be at a crucial stage and the involvement of other persons is being ascertained and goods yet to be recovered. 11. Upon considering the materials and hearing the counsels, I find force in the projection of the prosecution/I/O at this stage and accordingly the bail petition stands rejected at this state. 12. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of. 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant