Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010029062025 2025:GAU-AS:11456 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/310/2025 KANGKAN KAUSHIK KASHYAP S/O PRASANNA KUMAR SARMAH, R/O WARD NO.7, MANGALDOI TOWN, P.O. CHAPAICHOWKA, PS. MANGALDOI, DISTRICT DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN 784529 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHOWDHURY, MR I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. S Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Dispur P.S Case No. 185/2025 registered under Section 61(2)/318(4)/336(4)/340(2) of B.N.S, 2023. 3. The F.I.R dated 03.03.2025 reflects that some unknown persons had visited the house of the informant and had informed her that a motorcycle was purchased by the informant and that he is liable to pay the E.M.I’s. However, the informant stated that no motorcycle was purchased by her and that she and others visited the dealer wherein they learnt that an unknown person had fraudulently used her voter I/d and forged her signature and had acquired a loan from the bank and purchased the motorcycle. In the said F.I.R, the informant further states that the petitioner who was a bank employee is also involved in the said offence. 4. Mr. S Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no connection with the said offence and that he had only approved the loan and the documents were verified by another official namely, Sahidul Mirza. He also submits that after approving the loan, the only duty of the petitioner was to send the demand draft to the dealer from where the buyer purchases the same, and as such, he said that he has no connection with the offence. 5. Mr. D.P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, on perusal of the Case Diary, submits that the petitioner had approved the loan and that one Saidul Alom Mirza has been paying the E.M.I’s of the vehicle to the bank. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and carefully gone through the Case Diary. It is reflected in the F.I.R that the petitioner is involved in the fraud and the conspiracy, but without Page No.# 3/3 any substantiating facts and it is also noticed that the verification of the papers were done by another official and not by the petitioner and it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Sahidul Mirza of the said bank had verified the same. 7. In view of the facts, this Court deems it fit to release the petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with 2(two) local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority under the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I/O Court as and when called for. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses connected with the case. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant