Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010030582025 2025:GAU-AS:8061 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/334/2025 RAHUL ROY S/O- SHREEBASH ROY, R/O- VILL- NATUN BAZAR, BASISTHA, P.S. BASISTHA, KAMRUP METRO, GUWAHATI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K DAS, C SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : AB/415/2025 SIBU MANDAL BOTH ARE SONS BALARAM MANDALRESIDENT OF H.NO-25 SHIV PATH LATAKATA BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 2: SUBHAM MANDAL BOTH ARE SONS BALARAM MANDAL Page No.# 2/7 RESIDENT OF H.NO-25 SHIV PATH LATAKATA BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP METRO ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. M ALAM Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/222/2025 ANIL KUMAR KHARKIA S/O SKRI SANTOSH KHARIKA R/O RUPNAGAR BHANGAGARH KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN 781032 VERSUS RAHUL ROY AND ANR S/O- SHREEBASH ROY R/O- VILL- NATUN BAZAR BASISTHA P.S. BASISTHA KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM RPE BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR HARISH BETALA Page No.# 3/7 Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for RAHUL ROY AND ANR Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/223/2025 ANIL KUMAR KHARKIA S/O SRI SANTOSH KHARIKA R/O RUPNAGAR BHANGAGARH KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN 781032 VERSUS SIBU MANDAL AND ORS SON of BALARAM MANDALRESIDENT OF H.NO-25 SHIV PATH LATAKATA BASISTHA DIST-KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 2:SUBHAM MANDAL GUWAHATI 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR HARISH BETALA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for SIBU MANDAL AND ORS :: PRESENT :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA For the Petitioners : Mr. HRA Choudhury, Senior Advocate. Mr. M.K. Das, Advocate. Page No.# 4/7 For the Respondent : Mr. B. Sarma, Addl. P.P., Assam. Mr. H. Betala, Advocate for the informant. Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025. Date of Judgment : 18.06.2025. O R D E R (CAV) Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel as well as Mr. M.K. Das, Advocate appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Assam as well as Mr. H. Betala, learned counsel representing the informant. 2. These are applications under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023, whereby the petitioners Rahul Roy, Sibu Mandal and Subham Mandal have prayed for the second time for realising them on pre-arrest bail in respect of Basistha P.S. Case No.632/2024. 3. These petitioners are employees of North-East Roadways & Global India Logistics owned by Mr. Anil Kumar Kharkia. Sibu Mandal has been working before the other two had joined the company. He had introduced Rahul Roy and Subham Mandal to Mr. Kharkia stating that these two persons are efficient and honest. Sibu Mandal reveals Mr. Kharkia that they are perfect for the post of Supervisor of online payments and for the post of cashier. Both of them were immediately appointed in May, 2020 and in July, 2020. 4. Mr. Kharkia has alleged that a few days prior to lodging of the FIR, he inspected the accounts of the company and found that the three petitioners together have embezzled money worth more than crores belonging to the company. 5. Mr. Betala has submitted that they have transferred money to the accounts of their acquaintances. Page No.# 5/7 6. Mr. Choudhury as well as Mr. Das have submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and whatever they had done had done so, upon the instructions of Mr. Kharkia. 7. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the petitioners can prove the aforesaid fact before the Investigating Officer. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Choudhury has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24. Paragraph 74 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v. Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] , the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that Page No.# 6/7 those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 9. In P. Chidambaram (supra), in paragraphs 81 & 83 it has been held as under: “81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] , the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35) “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. (emphasis supplied) 83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” Page No.# 7/7 10. In the instant case, there is an allegation that the petitioners had embezzled crores of rupees belonging to the company. Therefore, a thorough investigation is required. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation might frustrate the activities of the investigating agency in this regard. Grant of anticipatory bail in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. 11. For the aforesaid premised reasons, this Court is of the opinion that for the offence committed by the petitioners, they are not entitled to get the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, both the bail applications are dismissed and disposed of accordingly. The connected interlocutory applications are also disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant