Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010240972025 2025:GAU-AS:17346 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2603/2025 BIDYUT BIKASH DEKA S/O MAHENDRA DEKA R/O- MILAN NAGAR SARTHEBARI, P.S.- SARTHEBARI, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, L DEKA,MR. N UDDIN,MR S K CHHETRY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 15-12-2025 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of Page No.# 2/4 pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Bidyut Bikash Deka who is apprehending arrest in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No.182/2024 under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/316(5)/306/316(2)/316(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel that the present petitioner is innocent and is no way connected with the alleged offence. 5. It is a fact that he was an employee under the SIS group and his only duty was to deposit money in the ATM machines. On the date of the incident, i.e., on 09.12.2024 also he received money for depositing the same in some ATMs and accordingly, the money received by him was deposited by him in some of the ATMs. 6. He further submitted that from the FIR itself it is seen that initially there was shortage of Rs.14,00,000/-, which was stated to be not deposited in the ATMs. But without any further detail it has mentioned in the FIR that there was total shortage of Rs.47,54,500/- and at the time of lodging the FIR the audit was also not complete. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that since 09.12.2024 he is not in service and hence he is not aware about the transactions to the other ATMs etc., after his discharge from service. He has not done anomalies in any ATM machine and he was doing his job sincerely for last 6 years and the money which he received has already been deposited in the ATMs. 8. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that in the earlier bail application it was also stated by the learned APP that there was misappropriation of Rs.98,00,000/- but the amount is mentioned without any audit report, nor there Page No.# 3/4 is reflection in the FIR in regards to misappropriation of Rs.98,00,000/-. 9. However, the petitioner is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with some interim protection. 10. Mr. Das, learned APP submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner and he received money to deposit in 27 numbers of ATMs, but that has been misappropriated and from the transaction history and from his bank statement also it is seen that there are several money transactions in the bank account of the present petitioner and some investments were also made in the IPL betting which is also available in the case diary. 11. He further submitted that at the time of lodging the FIR, there was shortage of fund of more than Rs. 47,00,000/-, but during the investigation and during the further audit it reveal that there was misappropriation of Rs.98,00,000/- wherein some other persons are also involved along with the present petitioner. 12. Mr. Das, learned APP further submitted that there is no new ground brought in the present petition to consider his bail application, which was earlier rejected on perusal of the case diary. He accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that for just and fair investigation of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much essential and therefore, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of interim pre arrest bail. 13. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case diary as well as the record wherefrom it reveals that petitioner’s earlier application for interim bail was rejected on 27.01.2025 after perusal of the case diary, wherein also it was found that after the audit around Page No.# 4/4 Rs.98,00,000/- was found to be misappropriated or was found short in the ATM counters which were asked to be deposited by the present petitioner. 14. Further from the perusal of the case diary, it is seen that there are sufficient incriminating materials brought against the petitioner showing his direct involvement in the alleged crime wherein it is alleged that Rs.98,00,000/- has been misappropriated while he was working in the SIS group and was entrusted with the duty to deposit money in various ATM machines. 15. So, considering this aspect of the case as well as the nature and gravity of the offence, I find that to unearth some more facts and also to apprehend some other culprits involved in the alleged offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of investigation of the case. 16. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner, namely, Bidyut Bikash Deka in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No.182/2024 under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/316(5)/306/316(2)/316(4) of BNS, 2023 stands rejected. 17. Return the case diary herewith. 18. This pre-arrest bail application accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant