Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010020242025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/250/2025 SRI PULEN BARMAN S/O. LATE KHAGEN BARMAN , VILLAGE- CHATAIBARI , P.S. GHOGRAPAR , DISTRICT NALBARI,ASSAM, 2: JUMI BARMAN S/O. SRI PULEN BARMAN VILLAGE- CHATAIBARI P.S. GHOGRAPAR DISTRICT NALBARI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. K DEY, MS N DUTTA,MR P K BASU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 28.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. K. Basu, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application has been preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 by the petitioners, namely, (1) Sri Pulen Barman, and (2) Smt. Jumi Barman, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with BI (EO) P.S. Case No. 06/2024 under Section 120(B)/420/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. It is pertinent to mention herein that on an earlier occasion also, the petitioners approached this Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail. However, by an order dated 06.01.2025 passed in A.B. Case No. 2768/2024, the said application was dismissed. 4. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 10.09.2024, Mahendra Kumar, Regional Head, Barpeta Road Regional Office of the Central Bank of India, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences) Guwahati, inter-alia, alleging that the accused persons named in the FIR, including the present petitioners, have committed fraud and misappropriation of public money at the Central Bank of India, Dhamdhama Branch in the district of Baksa, Assam. It has been alleged that there have been unauthorized transaction in the Self- Help Group (SHG) accounts at the branch office of the Bank at Dhamdhama during the tenure when the accused No. 1 named in the FIR, namely, Mr. Kiran Das, was the Branch Manager of the said branch. 5. It has been alleged that embezzlement in the Self-Help Group loan accounts were found, on different dates, by the Branch Manager, namely Mr. Kiran Das, with the Page No.# 3/5 help of branch business correspondents, Mrs. Jumi Barman and Mr. Pulen Barman. It is also alleged that after detection of the embezzlement, an amount of total Rs. 28 lakhs, which was fraudulently withdrawn from the SHG accounts has been returned back to the account of the borrowers by way of cash/transfer/NEFT/RTGS. 6. It is also alleged that during a discrete inquiry, it has been found that an amount of Rs. 3,25,29,657.17/- (Three Crore Twenty Five Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven and Seventeen Paise only) has been withdrawn through unauthorized and unlawful transactions on various dates. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, though, the petitioners have filed this anticipatory bail application for the second time after the rejection of their first application, however, there are new grounds for preferring the present application. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the earlier application was rejected on 06.01.2025 and since then, considerable time has elapsed and there might be progress in the investigation, which may not require the custodial detention of the present petitioners. 9. He further submits that in the meanwhile, one of the co-accused namely, Dhiraj Barman, has been granted anticipatory bail in A.B. Case No. 2782/2024. It is further submitted that the petitioners stand on a same footing as that of Dhiraj Barman, who has already been granted bail, and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the ground of parity, the petitioners may also be allowed to go on bail. 10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in (2005) 7 SCC 226. 11. On the other hand, Mr. M. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of BI (EO) P.S. Case No. 06/2024 and has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the ground Page No.# 4/5 that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners in the case diary and their custodial interrogation would be necessary for the fair completion of the investigation. 12. He further submits that no new ground has been shown by the petitioners for preferring this anticipatory bail when their earlier anticipatory bail was dismissed on merit. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the materials available on record, including the case diary of BI (EO) P.S. Case No. 06/2024, which was requisitioned in connection with this case. 14. The allegations levelled in the FIR are regarding the embezzlement of huge amount of money to the extent of Rs. 3,25, 29,657.17(Three Crore Twenty Five Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven and Seventeen Paise Only) and there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary, which indicates that the bank account of the petitioners were used on several instances for the deposits/withdrawal/transfers of money involved in the embezzlement. 15. On perusal of the materials in the case diary, it appears that the co-accused Dhiraj Barman, who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, stands on different footing from that of the present petitioners. Sri Dhiraj Barman was posted as a customer service associate in the Central Bank of India and his duty was to maintain the cash counter as well as to provide service to the customers, whereas, the present petitioners are associated with the Bank Manager Kiran Das. There are evidence to show that fake SHG accounts were opened and money were deposited in the bank account of the present petitioners and later on withdrawn. 16. The earlier bail application of the petitioners was rejected after perusal of the case diary on 06.01.2025 and this Court is of the considered opinion that no new grounds for preferring the instant bail application are there to pass a favorable order under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in favor of the present petitioners. Page No.# 5/5 17. This anticipatory bail application, therefore, is rejected. 18. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant