Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010040162026 2026:GAU-AS:3521 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/448/2026 MRINAL DAS ALIAS MRINAL CH DAS S/OLATE PHANIDHAR DAS R/O VILL- PANDU (SADILAPUR) P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, P. KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 10-03-2026 Heard Mr. A. Paramanik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Mrinal Das @ Mrinal Ch. Das in connection with Palashbari P.S. Case No. 01/2026 under Sections 61(2)/316(5)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/344 of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Paramanik that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 05.03.2026, the petitioner has already appeared before the I/O, cooperated in the investigation and his statement is also recorded by the I/O. Mr. Paramanik further submitted that being the Branch Manager his duty is not to verify the documents and being the Branch Manger those were supposed to be verified by the Field Officers as well as Service Manager and for the said duties only the persons are entrusted by the Bank. Further, he submitted that for a Branch Manager, it is not at all possible to verify all the documents in detail before approving the documents and on considering the verification report submitted by the Field Officer/Service Manager, the Branch Manager used to approve the note. He further submitted that he has faced departmental proceeding in this regard wherein he presently demoted to Deputy Manager and all the documents/loan sanctioned applications etc. are not in his custody and those were already seized by police during investigation. He further submitted that in the relevant period of time, the co-accused Rafikul Islam being the Service Manager had verified all the documents, on the basis of that verification report the approval was conduct by the present petitioner being the Branch Manager. 5. Mr. Paramanik further submitted that there is no specific allegation brought Page No.# 3/4 by the present petitioner in the FIR and it is the Field Officer and the Service Manager who reportedly verified the loan applications and the documents. However, the present petitioner is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of this case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 6. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that he is the person who approved all the loans in the name of some fictitious persons who are not even a salaried person though some salary certificate and pay slip and other documents were submitted before the Branch Manager. Being the Branch Manager, his duty is to verify the documents before any approval and it cannot be said that only on the basis of the verification note, the Branch Manager may approve the notes. More so, he already faced departmental enquiry and demoted to Deputy Manager in the same Branch. 7. Mr. Borthakur however submitted that most of the documents were already seized by the I/O during investigation and the documents are still under verification as the case is at the very nascent stage of investigation. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that though the Branch Manager appeared before the I/O and cooperated in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may be necessary to unearth some more facts involved in this case. Mr. Borthakur accordingly raised objection and submitted that it may not be a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 8. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, from the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that he being the Branch Manager, used to approve the loan in the name of some fictitious persons. But, in the same time it also cannot be denied that Verification Report were Page No.# 4/4 submitted by Field Officer and the Service Manager for which they were appointed in the said Branch. But, being a Branch Manager before approving the loan it is his duty to verify the Report submitted by the Service Manager to the Field Officer. But, without doing so, the loan were sanctioned in the name of some fictitious persons. However, it is seen that after obtaining the order of pre- arrest bail, the petitioner appeared before the I/O and in the same time it is also seen that most of the documents were already seized by the police during investigation. The entire case is basically based on documentary evidence. However, the further interrogation of the present accused/petitioner also cannot be denied at this stage. 9. In view of this the interim protection granted to the present petitioner vide order dated 05.03.2026 is hereby made absolute with the same terms and conditions and in the same time being a Branch Manager at the relevant time of incident, he is hereby asked to appear before the I/O after 10 (ten) days from the date of order and to extend his cooperation as and when he will be required. 10. With the above observations, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant