Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010056502025 2025:GAU-AS:4386 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/622/2025 BIKRAM JHA S/O SITA RAM JHA R/O VILL-SHILKURI PART-III,P.S. SILCHAR SADAR, SUB-DIVISION-SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM,PIN-788118 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M S MAZUMDER, MR. N K KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 08.04.2025 Heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 366/2024, under Sections 420/468/470/471/472/473/474/ 475/120(B)/409 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 820/2024. 3. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the earlier anticipatory bail application of the present petitioner was rejected by this Court vide Order dated 02.04.2024, passed in AB No. 759/2024, which has been passed more than 1 (one) year ago and thus, at present there may be sufficient progress in the investigation of this case. Further he submitted that the present accused/petitioner is not at all involved in the alleged offence and he only introduced the F.I.R. named accused Nos. 3 & 4 with the informant, who wanted to buy low cost animal consumable rice and apart from that, there is no role played by the present petitioner. Further he submitted that neither any money was deposited in the bank account of the present petitioner nor his bank was freezed during the investigation of this case. The money has already been Page No.# 3/5 released in favour of the informant on 2 (two) occasions and some bank accounts of the co-accused were also freezed in connection with this case wherein some amount of money was deposited. Further he submitted that after the rejection of the earlier bail application, there are some new development as one Asif Iqbal had executed a Deed of Acceptance/Declaration accepting that the entire deal was finalized and executed by him without the knowledge of the other co-accused persons, namely, Bikram Jha (present petitioner), Mukesh Kumar Singh and Harendar Pathak. In the said Deed of Acceptance, it is also stated that the said Asif Iqbal took the complete responsibility to refund Rs. 10,25,00,000/-, which was credited by the informant in his trust account. Mr. Kalita, accordingly, submitted that the present petitioner is no way involved in the alleged offence and except introducing the informant with the accused Nos. 3 & 4, he did not play any role as alleged in the F.I.R. However, he is ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner in the Case Diary and the present petitioner played a very vital role in the entire process of misappropriating the money. He further submitted that from the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that the petitioner introduced the accused Nos. 3 & 4 with the informant, who wanted to buy the animal consumable rice at low cost and the petitioner, in connivance with all the accused persons, provided some fake sanction order from the FCI Banaras to the informant and the bank draft was also made in the name of G.M., FCI and thus the informant was under impression that the draft was prepared by the General Manager, FCI. But, later on, it has come to the knowledge of the I.O. Page No.# 4/5 that all the bank drafts were credited in the name of one organization, namely Global memorial Foundation Plus Interoperability. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the Case Diary further reveals that the money, which was deposited by the informant, was accordingly distributed amongst the accused persons and the said Asif Iqbal, who is stated to be executed the Deed of Acceptance, is the accused No. 4, i.e. Shailender Kumar @ Asif Iqbal, and he is also involved in the alleged offence. Further, from the statement of said Asif Iqbal, it also reveals that the entire transacted money was distributed amongst the accused persons and the entire money was transacted/ fraudulently obtained by all the accused persons at the behest of the present petitioner, who introduced the informant with the other accused persons. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the case is still under investigation and the present accused/ petitioner, being one of the main culprit in the present case, his custodial interrogation is very much necessary for the interest of further investigation and thus, considering the seriousness of the case, he raised objection in granting the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the present accused/petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, nature and gravity of the offence, materials collected by the I.O. and the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence, which is available in the materials so far collected by the I.O., I find that custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may be required for the interest of proper investigation and also to unearth some more facts of the case and also to nab some other culprits involved in this case, if any, and therefore, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner and accordingly the same stands rejected. Page No.# 5/5 7. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 8. The Case Diary be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant