Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010051712025 2025:GAU-AS:3407 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/585/2025 SANJEEV KUMAR MAHATO S/O NANDI KISHOR MAHATO VILL GRAHEM BAZAR, RED CROSS ROAD NEAR SANI MANDIR P S DIBRUGARH, DIST.DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP.BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, A R MONDAL,MR. S ISLAM,MR A HAWARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 25.03.2025 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury for the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Mahato who has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is Page No.# 2/3 apprehending arrest in connection with Dholla Police Station Case No. 06/2025 under Sections 61(2)/336(3)/316(5)/318(4)/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 3. The allegation is basically against Mr. Pradyut Konwar who has disbursed and sanctioned several loans in an illegal manner and beyond his power. Files of such sanctioned or enhanced loans were not created. The borrowers shown as having received loans were not aware of such loans being transferred to their accounts. After disbursement of such loans, these funds have been misappropriated in a clandestine manner. The related vouchers of such transfer of loans were not in record. Bogus and fake accounts were also created. Some customers who have been affected by such illegal transactions brought to light the conduct of Pradyut Konwar and other accused. It is submitted that Pradyut Konwar and the informant Bijoy Padi have also been suspended and a criminal case has been registered against him. It is submitted that the present petitioner was not at all aware that such funds were deposited to his account. The petitioner is a reputed businessman and he had no knowledge about loans being sanctioned in his favour. The petitioner had never applied for loan. The loan was deposited and withdrawn by the main accused Pradyut Konwar. 4. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary that the petitioner is complicit. 5. It appears that the miscreants have been working in tandem to misappropriate and enhance loans sanctioned to the borrowers, although the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner has submitted that he was not aware that money was deposited in his account. 6. At this juncture, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Petition with prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected at this stage. 8. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant