Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010001252025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/39/2025 PIJUSH NATH S/O DHIRU NATH R/O RONGKUT BLOCK NO. 3, P.S. HOWRAGHAT, P.O. RONGKUT DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M R DEVI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 29.01.2025 Heard Mr. M.R. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Page No.# 2/3 By filing this application u/s 482 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Kowsar Alom, has sought for pre-arrest bail, in connection with Howraghat PS Case No.61/2024 U/S 120(B)/420/406 of IPC, R/W Section 21(1)/21(2)/21(3)/23 of the Banning of unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has not taken huge amount of money as mentioned in the FIR and never cheated them. In fact, the informant and some other persons had voluntarily given some money to the petitioner/accused to invest in the petitioner’s stock market business. It is also submitted that the accused/petitioner has paid such amount which he had taken from the informant and other persons either directly or transferring the amount to their bank account. The petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence, the pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary and submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials found against the petitioner. The petitioner has taken money in view of investing the same in the stock market business but did not return anything to informant and other persons and fled away. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of the bail application. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case diary including the statement of the Page No.# 3/3 witnesses recorded by the I.O. In the case diary, it reflects that the petitioner had collected money from the informant and 12 others in the name of trading and investment and claimed that he has all documents and license for such investment. Accordingly, the informant and the 12 other persons took huge amount of loan from bank and invested such amount with the petitioner. It also appears from the case diary that after depositing huge amount of money in the year 2022/2024, when the informant along with others started to make enquiry to the petitioner regarding their investments, then the petitioner stopped receiving their phone calls and fled away. It also appears that the petitioner cheated many other people of the same village believing that he is a stock marketing investor and took huge amount of money from them. In view of the above, this Court finds it not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application stands rejected. Return the case diary. This disposes of the anticipatory bail application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant