Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010202262025 2026:GAU-AS:1628 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./386/2025 ROSHIDUL ISLAM ALIAS MD RASHIDUL ISLAM S/O ROFIKUL ISLAM AND RESIDENT OF VILL- SONAPUR NO. 2, P.S. BIHPURIA, IN THE DISTRICT OF LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, S T AMAN,MD A RAHMAN,MR A W AMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 06.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. Invoking Sections 438, 442, 528 B.N.S.S., the revision petitioner is seeking interference with impugned orders dated 25-06-2025 and 02-08-2025, passed by Learned SDJM (M), Gossaigaon in PRC No. 73 of 2025, which arose out of Gossaigaon PS Case No. 49 of 2025. Page No.# 2/5 3. On 09-04-2025, one FIR was lodged by one Vinod Kumar with the allegation that he received the phone call from one unknown number with the caller ID identifying himself as Raju, stating that his brother, while working in Arunachal Pradesh, had found a golden boat and he wanted to sell it due to financial problems. The value of the boat was quoted as 20 lakhs and that it is 1.5 kg and it is contended that it was original gold. 4. Subsequently, the informant came to his place and he was asked to pay Rs. 20 lakhs, but paid Rs. 5 lakhs in cash on 27-03-2025 and took the boat, which however was later found to be fake. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. The FIR was registered into Gossaigaon PS Case No. 49 of 2025. 5. During investigation, the account number of the present petitioner being SBI Account No. 35176341258 (IFSC code SBIN0007372) in Lakhimpur Branch – was frozen on 10-04-2025. Request was made to the court to freeze the account of the petitioner bearing the said details on the ground that it was linked to the alleged offence. Accordingly, the bank account was frozen. 6. During the investigation, the petitioner sought de-freezing of the account. Whereupon, the learned Magistrate after calling for perusing a police report, was pleased to reject the prayer vide order dated 25-06-2025. In the meantime, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid vide CS No. 69 of 25 dated 29-05-2025, under Section 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 7. Four accused persons were sent up for trial including one Narsul Islam @ Raju stated to be the brother of the petitioner. However, interestingly, the petitioner was not sent up for trial. 8. In these circumstances, the petitioner again prayed for de-freezing of his account by filing a petition and the learned Magistrate, after calling for yet another report from the I.O., was pleased to reject the prayer for de-freezing Page No.# 3/5 vide the order dated 02-08-2025. The revision petitioner is assailing the said orders. 9. The I.O. had contended in the report that Narsul Islam did not have a bank account and the money pertaining to the alleged offence was deposited in the account of the present petitioner and hence, its freezing is necessary. 10. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner, summits that in a situation where the petitioner is not sent up for trial, the continued freezing of his bank account has caused prejudice to him and is untenable in law. 11. It is submitted that the activities pertaining to the alleged offences were supposedly started around 20-03-2025 and the FIR came to be lodged on 9-04- 2025. 12. Drawing attention to the annexed documents, it is submitted that the petitioner has annexed his bank transactions for the entire period from 19th March, 2025 to 14th April, 2025 and by referring to the same, it is contended that none of the transactions during this period include an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. 13. Mr. learned counsel, submits that on 27th March 2025, there was a transaction of Rs. 3 lakhs from one Akramul Haque, who is not an accused. 14. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel contends that the impugned order may be set aside and his account may be allowed to be de- freezed as he is facing lot of difficulties due to the same and the same being untenable in law in the present situation after filing of charge-sheet. 15. The scanned TCR has been received. 16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the brother of the petitioner, who is a co-accused, did not have a bank account and therefore, the Page No.# 4/5 money was transferred to the account of the petitioner. The IO during investigation has seized some copies of the bank statements which are available in the scanned case record. As already stated, the petitioner's side has also annexed copies of the bank statements for the period from 19th March to 14th April, 2025. 17. I have perused the copies of the bank statements from those annexed by the petitioner as well as available in the scanned record. Various transactions are there of different amounts. The only high value transaction that I have noticed is credit of Rs. 3 lakhs on 27th March, 2025 from one Akramul Haque. It is important to note that as many as seven accused persons have been sent up for trial by the charge-sheet upon completion of investigation. However, the present petitioner is not one of those sent up for trial. 18. Thus, it can be said that the Investigating Officer has exonerated him from the allegations. Needless to say that the IO is at liberty to continue further investigation and it is not clear as to whether any such investigation is in progress. However, apart from the charge-sheet which is available in the record, no other supplementary charge sheet is stated to have been submitted so far. With regard to the transaction of Rs. 3 lakhs mentioned above, the said Akramul Haque from whom the transaction is shown is not one of the accused sent up for trial. 19. In these facts and circumstances and especially when the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted – it would be unfair at this stage to allow his savings account in SBI to remain frozen. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the said account Page No.# 5/5 happens to be his main transaction account and he relies upon the same and therefore, freezing of the same has caused him prejudice. 20. There might be a little suspicion with regard to the transaction of Rs. 3 lakhs on 27th May 2025. But in the absence of other materials and keeping in mind that the creditor Akramul Haque is not a charge sheeted accused nor the petitioner – it would be fair to give benefit of doubt to the petitioner at this stage. However, suitable conditions can be imposed while directing de-freezing of the account. 21. Accordingly, in the background of the above discussion, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted and his account – SBI Account No. 35176341258 (IFSC code SBIN0007372) in Bongalmara Branch, Lakhimpur - is hereby allowed to be de-freezed, subject to the condition that he shall submit a bond of Rs.3 lakhs before the learned court below and to its satisfaction. 22. The petitioner shall submit a copy of this order along with the necessary orders passed by the learned court below upon his bond - before the concerned bank authority, which shall then do the needful towards de-freezing the account and making it operational again in favour of the petitioner. 23. The petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant