Page No.# 1/12 GAHC020006512026 2026:GAU-NL:422 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : AB/7/2026 SHRI MILAN A SHAH @ MILAN AJIT KUMAR SHAH S/O SRI AJIT KUMAR SHAH, R/O 6/1 SARAT BOSE ROAD, GEETANJALI APTS, 5A, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL - 70020 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : D DAS SR. ADV., LUCY WEO,M SOLO,K MOHAMMED Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA O R D E R 07.08.2026 Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Mohammad, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. Veto Zhimo, the learned PP for the State of Nagaland. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, Page No.# 2/12 praying for granting pre-arrest bail to the Accused/Applicant in connection with Dimapur Sub-Urban Police Station Case No. 56/2025, registered under Sections 409/420/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. An FIR was lodged on 11.10.2025 by the Informant, Sri Kuhoi Sumi, alleging, inter alia, that on 10.12.2010, in Thaheklu Village, Dimapur, Mr. Pradeep Agarwal introduced him to one Mr. Arun Bhutoria (since deceased) for the purpose of making an investment in M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited; that Mr. Arun Bhutoria represented himself as the Director of M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited and proposed that if he invested in the company for 3-4 years, he would return the invested amount with 30% profit; that on the basis of such assurances, the Informant handed over Rs. 1 Crore in cash to late Arun Bhutoria at Thahekhu Village and further agreed to pay Rs. 4 Crores on 17.12.2010; that on 17.12.2010, at the office of M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited, he handed over Rs. 4 Crores to late Arun Bhutoria in the presence of Mr. Pradeep Agarwal and other directors of the company, including the Accused/Applicant; that a Money Receipt was issued acknowledging receipt of the total amount of Rs. 5 Crores and promising repayment in 4 years; that in and around September 2015, the Informant requested the accused persons to repay his investment along with 30% profit; that the accused persons gave him false assurances and in December 2022, it became apparent to him that they had no intention of repaying the amount; that accordingly, he invoked the criminal justice system for non- payment of loan purportedly taken in the name of M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited by late Arun Bhutoria. 4. In terms of the aforesaid FIR dated 11.10.2025, the police registered Page No.# 3/12 Dimapur Sub-Urban PS Case No. 56/2025, under the abovementioned sections against the accused Applicant and two other accused persons, namely, Anil Bhutoria and Sandeep Bhutoria 5. By filing the instant pre-arrest bail application, the accused Applicant has contended that a mere perusal of the aforesaid Money Receipt as mentioned in the FIR, it would appear that the same had been issued in the private capacity of late Arun Bhutoria, and the signatures of the accused applicant or other accused persons were not present in the aforesaid Money Receipt. The signature and name of Mr. Pradeep Agarwal was mentioned, who purportedly introduced the Informant to late Arun Bhutoria and persuaded the Informant to invest a sum of Rs. 5 Crores on 10.12.2010. 6. It has been contended by the accused Applicant that the accused applicant never met the Informant in person or even heard of him before the registration of the FIR on 11.10.2025. It has been contended that the accused Applicant and late Arun Bhutoria did not serve as Directors of M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited at the same time. It has been contended that late Arun Bhutoria resigned from M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited on 24.11.2010, which is prior to the alleged transactions dated 10.12.2010 and 17.12.2010 with the Informant. It has been contended that the Accused/Applicant was inducted as a Director of M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited on 24.10.2010 and resigned on 22.06.2023. It has also been contended that the Accused/Applicant had invested in M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited and though he was inducted as a Director, the Accused/Applicant was never a shareholder of M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited. Page No.# 4/12 7. It has been contended that on 10.12.2025, the Accused/Applicant approached this Hon’ble Court for quashing of the FIR dated 11.10.2025, which was registered as Criminal Petition No. 43/2025. It has been contended that after hearing the Accused/Applicant, this Hon’ble Court passed an interim order directing the Investigating Officer not to take any coercive action against the Accused/Applicant. It was further directed that since the Accused/Applicant was in the United States of America in bereavement, his statement under Section 35(3) of the BNSS may be recorded by the Investigating Officer through virtual mode. Accordingly, on 16.12.2025, the Accused/Applicant communicated the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Petition No. 43/2025 to the Officer-in-Charge, SubUrban Police Station, Dimapur, requesting that his statement may be recorded virtually, as directed. However, not receiving any reply from the police authorities, the Accused/Applicant sent another reminder email on 09.01.2026. It has been contended that despite the aforesaid two emails communicating the order dated 10.12.2025, the Accused/Applicant did not receive any reply from the Investigating Officer. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the Accused/Applicant filed I.A. (Crl.) No. 2/2026 in Criminal Petition No. 43/2025 seeking a direction from this Hon’ble Court for compliance with the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by this Court and/or dispensation of the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. 8. It has been contended that this Hon’ble Court, on 19.01.2026, in the aforesaid I.A., i.e., I.A. (Crl.) No. 2/2026, directed the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the Accused/Applicant through virtual mode, and till such time, physical appearance before the Investigating Officer Page No.# 5/12 was kept in abeyance. It has been contended that thereafter, on 28.01.2026, the accused Applicant’s statement was virtually recorded, and accordingly, by order dated 29.01.2026, the I.A. (Crl.) No. 2/2026 was disposed of by dispensing with the petitioner's physical appearance. It has also been contended that prior to the recording of the statement and without complying with the directions of this Hon'ble Court dated 10.12.2025, the Investigating Officer issued notices under Section 94 and 35(3) of BNSS to the Accused/Applicant’s companies, namely, M/s Adbhut Vinimay Private Limited, M/s Dristi Towers Private Limited and M/s Zenith Nirman Private Limited, on 03.01.2026, directing the Accused/Applicant to produce certain documents and information of the said companies for the period from 2010 till date, on or before 15.01.2026. The Accused- Applicant complied with the Investigating Officer's directions on 14.01.2026 by post and email, providing the documents sought, vide the aforesaid notice dated 03.01.2026. It has been contended that on 18.02.2026, the Investigating Officer again served the Accused-Applicant with fresh notices under Section 94 of the BNSS seeking the same voluminous documents and information relating to the Accused/Applicant’s aforesaid three companies, and the Accused/Applicant complied with the Investigating Officer's directions on 01.03.2026 and 02.03.2026 by post and email, providing the documents sought, vide notice dated 18.02.2026. It has been contended that regarding the facts about the issuance of the notice under Section 94 of BNSS by the Investigating Officer, the Accused/Applicant, by way of an additional affidavit, brought those facts to the notice of this Hon'ble Court, and this Hon'ble Court, by order dated 10.03.2026, was pleased to take cognizance and directed that no further Page No.# 6/12 notices may be sent to the Accused/Applicant under Section 94 and 35(3) of the BNSS until the next date of listing of Criminal Petition No. 43 of 2025. 9. This Hon'ble Court heard Criminal Petition No. 43/2025 and reserved judgment on 16.06.2026 and thereafter, on 24.07.2026, this Hon'ble Court dismissed the Criminal Petition by its final Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2026. However, this Hon'ble Court extended the interim protection to the Accused/Applicant for one month, i.e., till or before 24.08.2026. It was further directed by the Hon'ble Court that liberty was given to the Accused/Applicant to approach the appropriate forum for an anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, if so advised. 10. Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Accused/Applicant, submits that the accused-applicant is in no way involved in any kind of inducement of the Informant for payment of Rs. 5 crores, as alleged. He submits that the accused-applicant has never met the Informant in person; and the accused-applicant and late Arun Bhutoria did not serve as Directors of M/s Abcon Properties Limited at the same time. He submits that late Arun Bhutoria resigned from M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited on 24.10.2010, which is prior to the alleged transactions dated 10.12.2010 and 17.12.2010 with the Informant. 11. Referring to a copy of Form 32 dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure-3), he submits that the accused-applicant was inducted as a Director of M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited only on 24.11.2010 and resigned on 22.06.2023. He submits that the accused-applicant is not a shareholder in M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited, though he had certain investments in the aforesaid company. He submits that late Arun Bhutoria, if at all, has Page No.# 7/12 taken certain money from the Informant, that is purely in his personal capacity and has nothing to do with M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited. He further submits that the aforesaid Form-32 makes it clear that late Arun Bhutoria resigned from the company on 24.10.2010, which is apparently prior to the alleged transactions dated 10.12.2010 and 17.12.2010; therefore, it cannot be said that late Arun Bhutoria acted on behalf of the company for the alleged inducement of the Informant to invest Rs. 5 crores in the company. He further submits that the Money Receipt which was issued by late Arun Bhutoria neither contains the signature of the Accused-Applicant nor was his presence in any way shown in the Money Receipt. He submits that the only person present at the time of issuance of the aforesaid Money Receipt was Mr. Pradeep Agarwal. 12. The learned Senior Counsel submits that a bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations against the accused-applicant are vague and based on flimsy grounds, intended to defame and harass the accused- applicant for undue benefit and without any bona fides. He submits that it is really difficult to get convinced that an amount of Rs. 5 crores will be delivered only on the basis of a written Money Receipt. He further submits that though the allegation of receipt of money is in the year 2010, no reminders or any information or communication had been made by the Informant to the accused-applicant for the last 15 years. Therefore, he submits that the contents of the FIR and allegations of the FIR dated 11.10.2025 are doubtful and cannot be relied upon. He submits that though Criminal Petition No. 43/2025, which was filed by the accused- applicant, has been dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide its Judgment and Page No.# 8/12 Order dated 24.07.2026, the accused-applicant was given interim protection for one month from the date of the Judgment and Order, and also given liberty to file an anticipatory bail, if so advised. The aforesaid clearly indicates that the accused-applicant has bona fide reasons to approach this Hon'ble Court by filing the instant A.B. application. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the accused-applicant has, all throughout, cooperated with the investigation and has already submitted whatever documents the Investigating Officer had requested from him. He further submits that the accused-applicant is a senior citizen having several ailments and is presently undergoing treatment in his city of residence in Kolkata. In support of the same, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted certain Medical documents, including Clinical Test Reports and prescriptions, which are kept on record by marking ‘X’. Therefore, he submits that taking into account the accused applicant’s current medical condition, coupled with his full cooperation with the investigation, he should be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail as he is willing to fully cooperate with the further investigation. He submits that in the event the Investigating Officer(s) desires to visit Kolkota, the same can be done at the expense of the Accused/Applicant. 13. Per contra, Mr. Zhimo, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Nagaland, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the accused- applicant, stating that a huge amount of money has been taken by the Accused/Applicant along with his other co-accused persons by falsely giving a promise of huge returns, thereby, inducing the Informant to pay such a huge amount. He submits that though certain documents have been received from the accused-applicant, further investigation is still Page No.# 9/12 going on, and therefore, the Accused/Applicant should not be granted pre- arrest bail at this stage. Further, the learned PP submits that, though, it has been contended by the accused applicant that he has been fully cooperating with the investigation, the same is not correct and there are incidence of his non-cooperation with the investigation. He vehemently opposes the pre-arrest bail prayer of the Accused/Applicant by submitting that the assistance in the investigation of the Accused/Applicant is very much necessary at this stage and therefore, his physical appearance before the Investigating Officer is very much necessary. 14. Photocopy of the Case Diary alongwith the Status Report has been produced before the Court and the same is perused. This Court has heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also gone through the materials brought on record by way of filing the instant pre-arrest bail application. 15. From the records, it is prima facie seen that the Accused/Applicant has recorded his statement before the Investigating Officer and has also provided all necessary documents as requested by the Investigating Officer in the instant case. It is also seen that the Accused/Applicant was a Director at the relevant time when the alleged transactions happened i.e. on 10.12.2010 and 17.12.2010 with the Informant by late Arun Bhutoria. It is also seen from the Money Receipt that there is no material to suggest that the Accused/Applicant was present when the transactions were made. 16. Form-32 dated 21.12.2010 reveals that the Accused/Applicant was inducted as a Director of M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited on 24.11.2010, which is prior to the date of the alleged transactions i.e. on Page No.# 10/12 10.12.2010 and 17.12.2010. It is also seen from the aforesaid Form-32 that he had already resigned on 22.06.2023. 17. The material fact which needs consideration is that at the relevant time that though when the transactions were made, i.e. on 10.12.2010 and 17.12.2010, with the Informant by late Arun Bhutoria, the Accused/Applicant was a director of M/s Abcon Properties Private Limited, this is also a fact that during the period from 2010 until the filing of the FIR till 11.10.2025, no such communication or reminders were received by the accused-applicant from the Informant; at least, no such material has been brought before the notice of this Court. 18. The learned Senior counsel has submitted a bunch of papers containing the sequential facts of the case alongwith certain documents. The same is kept on record by marking ‘Y’. By referring to an email dated 01.03.2026 addressed by the Accused/Applicant to the Officer-in-Charge, Sub-Urban Police Station, Dimapur, Nagaland, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that as requested by the Investigating Officer, he has provided all requested documents alongwith information relating to Zenith Nirman Private Limited wherein the Accused/Applicant is a Director. Similarly, he has referred to two more emails dated 01.03.2026 addressed by the Accused/Applicant to the Officer-in-Charge, Sub-Urban Police Station wherein the details and requested documents relating to the Companies, namely Dhristi Towers Private Limited and Adbhut Vinimay Private Limited respectively were provided to the aforesaid Officer-in- Charge. Therefore, he submits that whatever documents and information that were sought from the Accused/Applicant by the Investigating Officer, have already been sent to the Investigating Officer on 01.03.2026. He Page No.# 11/12 submits that in the instant case, the investigation will basically be on the basis of the documentary evidence and whatever documents were required and requested by the Investigating Officer have already been submitted long time back on 01.03.2026. Therefore, he submits that since his statements have already been recorded and the documents requested by the Investigating Officer have already been submitted before the Investigating Officer, his custodial detention in the instant case shall not be required. 19. On perusal of the Case Diary, the bunch of documents contained in ‘Y’ as well as the Medical Report contained in ‘X’ and on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial detention of the Accused/Applicant at this stage may not be required. Accordingly, it is directed that the Accused/Applicant, in the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer in connection with Dimapur Sub-Urban Police Station No. 56/2025, shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority subject to the following conditions:- (i) The Accused/Applicant shall appears before the Investigating Officer within a period of 45 (forty-five) days from today, i.e. 07.08.2026. (ii) The Accused/Applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation. 20. In the event of the Investigating Officer is willing to travel to Kolkata during the period of 45 (forty-five) days from today, the Investigating Officer alongwith two Officers can visit Kolkata to interrogate the Page No.# 12/12 Accused/Applicant with a prior intimation to the Accused/Applicant. However, the expenses for such visit of the aforesaid three persons shall be borne by the Accused/Applicant. In such visit by the Investigating Officer alongwith his team the direction for appearance within 45 (forty- five) days to the Accused/Applicant from today shall be dispensed with. 21. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the instant Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant