Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010045802025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/539/2025 KIRAN DAS SON OF SHRI. CHANDRA KANTA DAS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF TEKELA CHIRING GAON, P.O. MOHANAGHAT, UNDER DIBRUGARH POLICE STATION, IN THE DISTRICT OF DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786004. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR, P D CHOUDHURY,MR S J CHOUDHURY,MR. BISWAJIT TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 01.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/7 Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, Kiran Das, for the second time, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with BI(EO) Case No. 06/2024 under Sections 120(B)/420/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 5509/2024. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 10.09.2024, one Mahendra Kumar, Regional Head, Barpeta Road Regional Office of 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 petitioner, 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 has 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 branch manager of the said branch. 4. It has been alleged that instances of embezzlement of money from the Self-Help Group loan accounts were found, on different dates, by the Branch Manager, Mr. Kiran Das, with the 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 It is also alleged that after detection of the embezzlement, an amount of total Rs. 28 lakhs, which was fraudulently withdrawn from the SHG accounts have been returned back to the account of the borrowers by way of cash/transfer/NEFT/RTGS. 5. It is also alleged that during discrete inquiry, it has been found that an amount of Rs. 3,25,29,657.17 (Rupees 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. Page No.# 3/7 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had approached on an earlier occasion before this Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected by order dated 06.01.2025, passed in AB Case No. 3194/2024. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one of the main reasons for rejection of the application for anticipatory bail filed by the present petitioner on the earlier occasion was that the amount involved in alleged misappropriation of the loan money was found to be huge amount of Rs. 3,25,29,657.17 (Rupees Three Crore Twenty Five Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven and Seventeen Paise only) at that stage, when the order for rejection was passed. 8. However, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the said rejection order, the petitioner, who is already placed under suspension, was served with a copy of Memorandum of Charges by the complainant bank in respect of the departmental proceeding, which has been initiated by the bank authority with regard to the same accusation for which the FIR in this case has been filed. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the perusal of the Memorandum of Charges served on the petitioner by the authorities of the Central Bank of India, it appears that the amount of transaction in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved is only of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) and not the Rs. 3,25,29,657.17 (Rupees Three Crore Twenty-Five Lakh Twenty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven and Seventeen Paise only) as stated in the earlier rejection order. 10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this revelation of a much lesser amount of money in which the petitioner has been Page No.# 4/7 allegedly involved in misappropriation, itself, is a fresh ground for seeking bail in the instant case. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was transferred from the Nalbari Branch of the Central Bank of India on 19.04.2024 and he was put under suspension on 30.05.2024. However, in the Memorandum of Charges served on the petitioner and a transaction which allegedly occurred on 11.10.2024 in respect of the account holder, Barikadanga Jeuti, itself shows that the alleged fraudulent transactions also occurred even after the petitioner was transferred from the said Bank and was put under suspension, which itself shows the non-involvement of the present petitioner in the accusations made in this case. 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though, the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected on 06.01.2025, however, he is not yet arrested, but an apprehension of getting arrest is always there. He also submits that as the investigation has progressed and it is mainly dependent on documentary evidence and the petitioner has already been put under suspension, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary if he otherwise cooperates in the investigation. 13. He also submits that one of the co-accused in this case, namely, Dhiraj Barman, who is the accountant, who had dealt with the loan accounts involved in the alleged offence in the FIR has already been granted anticipatory bail in AB Case No. 2782/2024. 14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the developments, which occurred after rejection of the earlier bail application and the fact that the petitioner is willing to cooperate in the investigation, he may be allowed to go on anticipatory bail. Page No.# 5/7 15. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M. P. Goswami has submitted that even if the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is taken into consideration, still the accusation against the petitioner would be of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only). He submits that quantum of the money is not a material aspect to be considered while considering cases regarding misappropriation of funds. He also submits that in the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer has recorded the evidence of some more witnesses, who have also incriminated the present petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. Hence, he submits that the prayer for bail may be rejected. 16. On perusal of the records available before the Court including the case diary of BI(EO) Case No. 06/2024, it appears that the earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 06.01.2025 i.e., almost four months ago. 17. It also appears on perusal of the rejection order that though incriminating materials were found against the present petitioner in the case diary, however, the main reason for rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail was involvement of huge amount of money i.e., Rs. 3,25,29,657.17 (Rupees Three Crore Twenty-Five Lakh Twenty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven and Seventeen Paise only). 18. However, considering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the documents produced before this Court i.e., the article of charges issued to the petitioner in connection with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him with regard to the same allegations by the bank authority, it appears that accusation against him is regarding misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Page No.# 6/7 only), which is much lesser than the earlier projected amount of Rs. 3,25,29,657.17 (Rupees Three Crore Twenty-Five Lakh Twenty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven and Seventeen Paise only). 19. It also appears that though the petitioner is one of the essential link in proper investigation of the case, his statement is yet to be recorded by the Investigating Officer. 20. It also appears that though, the petitioner was not under any protection till date, however, he was not arrested by the Investigating Officer till date which also shows that either the police has been unable to arrest the petitioner or it had not deemed it necessary to arrest him. 21. In any view of the matter, considering the developments which occurred after rejection of the first bail application and also considering the following facts, his custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary, if he cooperates in the investigation: i. Most of the evidence against the petitioner in respect of the accusation made in the FIR would be documentary in nature and therefore, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. ii. That almost nine months have lapsed since the filing of the FIR in this case, however, till date the police has not been able to record the statement of the present petitioner which appear to be very vital from the point of view of investigation of the case. iii. The petitioner has already been put under suspension and therefore, he is no longer in control of the said Dhamdhama Branch of the Central Bank of India and may not be Page No.# 7/7 in a position to tamper with the evidence any longer. 22. In view of the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the statement of the present petitioner are vital for fair investigation of BI(EO) Case No. 06/2024. 23. Hence, the above-named petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of BI(EO) Case No. 06/2024 within 7 days of the date of this order and cooperate in the investigation. If he does so within the said period, in the event of his arrest in connection with BI(EO) Case No. 06/2024, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer. 24. With the above observation, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of. 25. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant