Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010269222025 2026:GAU-AS:884 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2874/2025 MANOJ KR HARLALKA S/O BODULAL HARLALKA, R/O FIRST FLOOR, SATYAM COMLEX, PAGLASTHAN,BONGAIGAON, BONGAIGOAN, ASSAM-783380 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHUYAN, P BHOWMICK,N.R. SHARMA,MR A SHARMA,MR. A KHOUND,MS. N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 27.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Manoj Kumar Harlalka, apprehending arrest in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case Page No.# 2/4 No. 204/2025 registered u/s 406/420/465/468/120B of BNS. 3. The projected facts in this case are that the present accused/petitioner and the informant Sushil Kr. Khandelia on behalf of his Firm Shri Ganesh Trading Company entered into an agreement 27.02.2013, whereby, the present accused/petitioner was given power of attorney with regard to execution of three contractual works that had been secured by the informant/firm and which were to be executed in BTAD area. It is submitted that the informant is based in Jagiroad and the accused petitioner is based in Bongaigaon. The same also is revealed from the agreement. Subsequently, with some allegations the informant, who is the proprietor of Shri Ganesh Trading Company lodged an FIR dated 08.08.2025 in the Chandmari Police Station. 4. The gist of the allegation is that in the context of the accused petitioner been given the power of attorney with regard to the construction works as mentioned above, he had fraudulently withdrawn and deposited the security deposits and maintenance deposits belonging to the Firm in the context for these works. The misappropriated amount has been mentioned as much as of Rs. 1,48,95,839/-. 5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that on 08.12.2025 the petitioner was granted interim pre-arrest bail and pursuant to which he has made himself before the IO more than one occasion. 6. Case diary has been received and it is confirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the statement of the petitioner has been recorded. One bail objection has also been filed by the IO objecting to grant of bail. Page No.# 3/4 7. Learned senior counsel reiterated that the dispute is primarily a civil dispute which has been given colour of criminal case. It is further submitted that in terms of agreement dated 27.02.2013, the petitioner was proposed to get 33% of the profit of the works undertaken on behalf of the informant but the same has not been given to him. It is also submitted that the relevant documents have not been sent to FSL and his hand writing sample has also not been taken and in this context it is submitted that all the documents are genuine and he has not committed any fraud and forgery with regard to the documents. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that all the alleged offences are punishable up to 7 years. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor draws attention to the bail objection and the materials reveals by the investigation. 9. I have considered the submissions and perused the statement of the accused materials recorded by the IO after grant of interim bail and available in the case diary. In the said statement he has stated about his business relation with the informant and about maintaining of a joint bank account at Federal Bank where all work related payments were deposited. He stated that upon completion of all works and receipt of all payments, no dues remain pending between them but later, the informant filed cheating case upon him which is false. 10. He further stated that the informant was aware of all the transactions. It appears that the petitioner and the informant had a business relationship and in course of the same, some works were to be undertaken by the accused petitioner. There appears to be a civil dimension to the matter, but whether criminal liabilities are made out Page No.# 4/4 would be a matter of investigation and outcome of such investigation. 11. I have perused the contentions made by the IO in the bail objections. 12. Nevertheless, considering the reasonable progress in the investigation and the various aspects of the relationship between the informant and the petitioner and the fact that pursuant to grant of interim bail, the petitioner has also rendered his cooperation to the investigation - I am of the considered view that it may not be necessary to cancel the interim bail and the same can be made absolute subject to conditions. 13. In such view of the matter, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 08.12.2025 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) Shall be co-operate with the remaining investigation and appear before the IO if necessary. (b) Shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence in any manner including any documentary evidence. (c) Shall not try to influence witnesses or try to intimidate or harm the informant. 14. Violation of any of the bail condition shall entail cancellation of bail. 15. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant