Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010191952026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2146/2026 JITUMANI ROY S/O LATE KHARGESWAR ROY R/O VILLAGE- WEST HUKAR TUP P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI DIST- BAJALI, ASSAM, VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 09.09.2026 Heard Mr. NK Kalita, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Pathsala P.S. Case No. 102/2026 registered under Section 316(2)/318(4)/319(2) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner apprehends arrest was lodged on 27.08.2026 by the informant alleging inter alia that around eight to nine months ago, the petitioner had told him that he can avail a loan from a Bandhan Bank, Kendukona Branch for the informant and for that purpose, he took away certain documents from the informant along with an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. However, the informant states that after few days, he came to know that the petitioner cannot avail any loan for him from the said bank. As such, he demanded from the petitioner the return of his documents, but the petitioner had been avoiding him. Further, the informant came to know from a call received from the Bandhan Bank authority on 22.06.2026 that some money was credited to his account on 04.06.2026. He also submits that on the same day itself Rs. 5,05,010/- were withdrawn by someone and that the account was kept as hold by the bank authority. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged after around two months from the date he came to know about the transaction made in his account. 4. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that without the knowledge of the informant, transactions were made in the account and that the petitioner had promised to get a loan for the informant which he failed and thereby had cheated the informant. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that there has been a considerable delay in lodging the FIR, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on interim pre-arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the Arresting Authority under the following conditions: Page No.# 3/3 i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. ii)the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when call for. ii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iii) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Arresting Authority. 6. Call for the Case Diary. 7. List this matter again on 25.09.2026. JUDGE Comparing Assistant