Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010007192025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./136/2025 ASRAFUL ISLAM S/O- ABDUL HAMID, R/O- VILL.- DALBARI , DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY LD. PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 24.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner Asraful Islam. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 05.12.2024 in connection with Jorhat P.S. Case No. 877/2022 under Sections 120(B)/420/406/467/468/471/34of the IPC. Page No.# 2/4 3. Heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 4. The FIR unfolds that Satyam Hospital and Research Center, Rupahi Ali, Jorhat owned by Dr. Bihari Agarwal and Dr. Sarweswar Agarwal, have been falsely raising claims for reimbursement under Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY). The District Medical Officer, Dr. Mayuri Borpatra Gohain and the informant Shri Jiten Gogoi, Operations Manager of Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY) visited the hospital on 23.11.2022 and 24.11.2022, and Dr. Sarweswar Agarwal denied having raised claims of their empanelment of the hospital under (AB-PMJAY). 5. It is further submitted that the Satyam Hospital and Research Center under (AB-PMJAY) was completed after following necessary formalities including the physical infrastructure audit by Dr. Debojit Bora with the District Coordinator of the Implementation Support Agency of (AB-PMJAY). Dr. Debojit Bora physically visited the hospital for carrying out necessary formalities on 23.08.2021, and the documents relevant thereto were also submitted by the hospital authorities. 6. It is alleged that substantial amount of money against false claims have been drawn by the hospital in their current account which was submitted during the empanelment process, and thus, an FIR was lodged by Shri Jiten Gogoi. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that case diary is necessary to consider the bail prayer. The co-accused have been enlarged on bail after the perusal of the Case Diary and this bail petition cannot be considered at this stage on the ground of parity as the Case Diary needs to be scrutinized. 8. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. Page No.# 3/4 9. I have considered the length of detention. It appears that further custodial detention may not be required for the progress of investigation. I have also considered the submission that two other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. The other co-accused are also on the same footing as the present petitioner. The petitioner is a local resident and he is not a flight risk. The petitioner has pledged to cooperate with the investigation. 10. Considering all aspects, petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court/Elaka Magistrate under the conditions that: (i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the remaining part of investigation, (ii) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, and (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every fortnight till completion of investigation. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 11. In terms of the above observation, bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant