Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010006132025 2025:GAU-AS:850 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./80/2025 DIGANTA DEKA S/O- LATE GAUTOM DEKA , RESIDENT OF SARTHEBARI (TAMULI CHUPA) PO AND P S SARTHEBARI DIST BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM, GAUHATI HIGH COURT Advocate for the Petitioner : PANKAJ JYOTI PATAR, MR. R K NATH,MR. K SINGHA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. D. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 182/2024, under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/306/316(2)/ 316(4)/316(5) of BNS, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 7382/2024. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner in innocent and he is no way connected in the alleged offence. It is a fact that one of the co-accused, namely, Mr. Bidyut Bikash Deka, is his childhood friend and the said co-accused took an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from him as loan and later on, he repaid the said loan amount by transferring Rs. 49,000/- from his account to the account of the present petitioner and for that reason only, the present accused/petitioner was arrested in connection with this case. Further he submitted that another amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was admittedly recovered from his house which he kept for paying salary to his employees as he is dealing with the business of brass materials. Accordingly, he submitted that the Sections under which the case has been registered are not at all attracted against the present petitioner. More so, the accused/ petitioner is behind the bar for last 33 days and thus, the I.O. got sufficient time for his custodial interrogation and hence, his further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the interest of investigation. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that sufficient incriminating materials has been collected by the I.O. during the investigation of this case and it is not a case that only Rs. 49,000/- was found Page No.# 3/3 transacted in the account of the present petitioner, but there are several transactions made to his account from the account of one of the co-accused, namely, Mr. Bidyut Bikash Deka, who is yet to be nabbed in connection with this case. Accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present petitioner at this stage. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, materials available in the Case Diary and the gravity of offence, wherein it is alleged that Rs. 98 Lakhs has already been misappropriated in connection with this case, I find that further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be necessary to unearth some more facts of this case, viz-a-viz to nab the other accused persons/culprits who are involved in this case, and accordingly the present bail application stands rejected at this stage. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant