Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010027592025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./348/2025 SAKIB CHOUDHURY SON OF - SAFIQUE CHOUDHURY, RESIDENT OF- HOUSE NO 12 NEW MASJID PATH, GANDHIBASTI , P.O- PALTAN BAZAR, DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MR. T ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 27.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. S Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Also heard Mr. R.J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. This application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the present petitioner namely, Sakib Choudhury, who has been detained behind bars Page No.# 2/3 since 19.01.2025 (for last 40 days), in connection with Mangaldoi PS Case No. 14/2025 under Section 61(2)(b)/316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/314(2) of BNSS. 4. The gist of accusation against the present petitioner is that on 18.01.2025, Mr. T Pegu, S.I of Police, lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Mangaldoi PS, inter alia, alleging that an information was received regarding a gang of financial fraudsters taking shelter at K.P Residency, Mangaldoi. Accordingly, a search was made and 4(four) numbers of accused persons, including the present petitioner, were arrested there from. During interrogation of the said accused persons, it was revealed that the accused persons were involved in financial fraud of bank accounts and they are operating all over India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S Munir, has submitted that the petitioner has been apprehended in connection with this case on the basis of suspicion, and, apart from the general accusation of the petitioner, having been involved in financial fraud, no specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already been detained behind the bars for the last 40 days and considering the period of detention, the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail as he is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has produced the Case Diary of Mangaldoi PS Case No. 14/2025 before this Court and has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Record and the investigation is still in its early stage. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both Page No.# 3/3 the sides and have gone through the Case Diary very carefully. The petitioner has been detained behind the bars against serious accusation of financial fraud involving bank accounts of innocent persons in an organized manner. 8. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner on record, and considering the initial stage of investigation, this Court is reluctant to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage. 9. Prayer for bail is therefore, rejected. 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant