Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040011672026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/89/2026 Mridu Pallav Hazarika Son of Late Bolo Ram Hazarika, resident of Rail Line Road, Namrup, SBI Parbatpur, PO and PS Namrup, Dibrugarh District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jambey Tsering Kee, Dejum Tally,Techi Topu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, With Case No. : AB/90/2026 Debajit Rajkhowa Son of Late Jiban Chandra Rajkhowa, resident of Junaki Nagar, PO and PS Dhuliapur, Sivsagar District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jambey Tsering Kee, Dejum Tally,Techi Topu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 29-07-2026 Heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned PP for the State. 2. The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Banderdewa PS Case No. 32/2026 under section 112/316(5)/318(4)/319(3)/341(1)(2) BNS. 3. The case arose out of an elaborate complaint dated 05.06.2026, lodged by one Rajesh Agarwal, who is stated to be a businessman and partner of M/s Premium Bonded Warehouse. 4. The gist of the allegations in a nutshell is that the accused person, Rishiraj Borkotoky, induced them to invest a considerable amount of money in some business activities and subsequently, the informant came to the opinion that he was defrauded. The amount in question is stated to be in excess of Rs. 30 crores. 5. Nevertheless, the informant has alleged that after the money came to be transferred to the account of Rishiraj Borkotoky, he along with the co-accused started transferring the money to various other accounts. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner and his business partner (who has preferred the other anticipatory bail application) had secured a license for IMFL (Indian Made Foreign Liquor) Page No.# 3/4 and started running the shop but subsequently faced some financial difficulties; owing to which they were was looking for an investor. Thereafter they came into contact with prime accused, Rishiraj Borkotoky, without being aware of any of his adverse antecedents. 7. The petitioner and his partner (who has preferred the other bail application), entered into an agreement with the said Rishiraj Borkotoky, for running the IMFL warehouse. However, as the days passed, they started having difficulties in receiving payments from the said accused and in this connection wrote a letter dated 16-10-2025 to him seeking the payments. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel that apart from the aforesaid aspects, the petitioner and his business partner/the other petitioner have no other connection with the matter and they do not even know the informant. 9. The scanned case diary has been received. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed the same before this Court and has drawn attention to the status report of investigation submitted by the IO. It is submitted by the prosecution that it may not be prudent to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage. 10. I have perused the materials, the submissions of the learned counsels and carefully gone through the case diary. I have also perused the status report of investigation submitted by the IO. 11. The present two petitioners are not mentioned by name in the complaint lodged by the informant, Rajesh Agarwal. The police have stated that the investigation has revealed that the prime accused Rishiraj Borkotoky, has transferred large amounts of money to various other Page No.# 4/4 persons and that the money trail is being investigated. However, upon perusing the case diary, I did not notice any specific mention of any monetary transaction to the present petitioners. The police investigation has also not mentioned in the case diary the petitioners by name. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find some force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with this case, they will be allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority, subject to conditions that:- (i) They shall fully cooperate with remaining investigation; (ii) They shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence; (iii) They shall not indulge in any illegal activities. 14. Violation of any of the bail conditions will entail cancellation of the bail. 15. The anticipatory bail petitions stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant