Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010044272025 2025:GAU-AS:2710 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./582/2025 MANOJ DAS S/O LATE GOPAL DAS, RESIDENT OF RUPNAGAR, WARD NO. 2, PS AND PO PATACHARKUCHI, DIST BAJALI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BORA, MS J RAJKUMARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 12.03.2025 1. Heard Ms. S. Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/4 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Manoj Das, who has been detained behind the bars since 13.02.2025 (for the last 27 days) in connection with Pathsala P.S. Case No. 12/2025, under Section 318(3)/318(4)/61(2)(A)/112/56 of BNS, read with Section 66 (B)/66(C)/66(A) of the IT Act. 3. The gist of accusation is that on 12.02.2025, one Bishnu Pd. Bhuyan had lodged an FIR, inter alia, alleging that an enquiry was conducted in respect of suspicious transactions in the current account of M/s Furniture House, of which the present petitioner is the proprietor. It was found during enquiry that within the period between 16.01.2025 to 21.01.2025 total 8256 transactions were made in the said account and an amount of Rs. 73.45 lakhs were transacted and the petitioner failed to provide valid source of refunds for these transactions. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner had facilitated various transactions linked to cyber crime activities and he allowed his bank account for facilitating legal financial transactions connected with cyber crime transactions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only accusation against the petitioner is that he allowed his current account for parking of funds deposited to his account by one from one, Mazidul Islam. 6. He submits that the petiotner has been detained behind the bars for the last 27 days. 7. In view of the period of detention already undergone by the Page No.# 3/4 present petitioner, he may be allowed to go on bail. 8. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Das the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has produced the Case Diary of Pathsala P.S. Case No. 12/2025 and has vehemently opposed the grant of bail. He has submitted that there are materials in the Case Diary which shows the connivance of the present petitioner in the legal financial transaction for defrauding the general public. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the Case Diary. 10. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner on record. 11. The offence alleged in this case is an economic offence effecting the interest of general public and the investigation is still on to find out as to where the money involved has been send and who are the other accused, who may be involved. It also appears that the evidence on record suggests that the petitioner intentionally provided his account details to the co-accused, Mazidul Islam on an understating of getting 1.5 % commission for every 100 rupees transactions on his account. 12. The petitioner appears to have allowed his account to be used as a mule account for illegal transactions. 13. Considering the nature of incriminating materials against the petitioner on record, as well as, considering the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the investigation is still at early Page No.# 4/4 stage, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 14. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected. 15. Send back the Case Diary. 16. The case is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant