Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010261542025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2798/2025 SRI PULEN BARMAN AND ANR SON OF- LATE KHAGEN BARMAN VILLAGE - CHATAIBARI. POLICE STATION- GHOGRAPAR DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 2: SMTI JUMI BARMAN SON OF- SRI PULEN BARMAN VILLAGE - CHATAIBARI. POLICE STATION- GHOGRAPAR DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM PIN VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MR. B.J. BRAHMA,A H CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 08.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/6 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Sri Pulen Barman and 2. Smti Jumi Barman, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 06/2024, under Sections 120B/420/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. It is pertinent to mention herein that this is for the third time the petitioner has approached this court seeking anticipatory bail. On earlier two occasions, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by this court. 4. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 10.09.2024, Mahendra Kumar, Regional Head, Barpeta Road Regional Office of the Central Bank of India, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In- Charge of the Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offences) Guwahati, inter-alia, alleging that the accused persons named in the FIR, including the present petitioners, have committed fraud and misappropriation of public money at the Central Bank of India, Dhamdhama Branch in the district of Baksa, Assam. It has been alleged that there have been unauthorized transaction in the Self Help Group (SHG) accounts at the branch office of the Bank at Dhamdhama during the tenure when the accused No. 1 named in the FIR, namely, Mr. Kiran Das, was the Branch Manager of the said branch. 5. It has been alleged that embezzlement in the Self-Help Group loan accounts were found, on different dates, by the Branch Manager, namely Mr. Kiran Das, with the help of branch business correspondents, Mrs. Jumi Barman and Mr. Pulen Barman. It is also Page No.# 3/6 alleged that after detection of the embezzlement, an amount of total Rs. 28 lakhs, which was fraudulently withdrawn from the SHG accounts has been returned back to the account of the borrowers by way of cash/transfer/NEFT/RTGS. 6. It is also alleged that during a discrete inquiry, it has been found that an amount of Rs. 3,25,29,657.17/- (Three Crore Twenty Five Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven and Seventeen Paise only) has been withdrawn through unauthorized and unlawful transactions on various dates. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the earlier prayer for grant of anticipatory bail application were rejected by this court, however, this time the petitioners have approached the court with some new grounds, which may be considered by this court. 8. He submits that though the allegations in the FIR have been made against four accused persons including the present petitioners, however, two accused persons including the prime accused, namely Sh. Kiran Das, who was the Manager of the Dhamdhama Branch of Central Bank of India has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court. The other co-accused, namely, Sri Dhiraj Barman has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. He submits that the initial accusation in the FIR was regarding embezzlement to the tune of more than Rs. 3 Crores 25 lakhs, however, while granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused, namely, Kiran Das, this court on the basis of the documents produced before it by the said petitioner, observed that accusation Page No.# 4/6 regarding misappropriation was to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs only, which is much lesser than the earlier projected amount of Rs. 3,25,29,657.17. 9. He further submits that the co-accused were also granted the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground that till consideration of their anticipatory bail application, the police was unable to apprehend them and therefore, this Court opined that either police is unable to arrest the said petitioner or had not deemed it necessary to arrest him. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that same reasoning may be applicable in case of the present petitioners. He submits that the petitioner No. 1 was the driver of the prime accused, i.e., the Branch Manager who has already been granted anticipatory bail, whereas petitioner No.2 is working as Branch Business Correspondent of Central Bank of India, Dhamdhama Branch. 11. He further submits that both the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the investigation. He further submits that in the bank account of the petitioner No. 2, no major transaction of money has been there and in no case the transaction is more than Rs. 49,000/- in a single day. He submits that the petitioners are ready to submit all the documents before the Investigating Officer and are ready to cooperate in the investigation. Hence, he prays that the petitioners may be allowed to go on anticipatory bail. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 5/6 vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioners on the ground that their first anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court after finding sufficient incriminating materials against them and said prayer was dismissed on merit. The second anticipatory bail application was also dismissed on the ground that the petitioners failed to project any new grounds, which would entitle them to get anticipatory bail after rejection of their earlier application. 13. He further submits that the offence involved in this case is a serious offence involving huge amount of money deposited by general public in the bank. He further submits that the field inquiry team of the bank in its report has found that an amount of more than Rs.3 crores was transacted in the account of Petitioner No. 1 in between 01.04.2021 to 18.04.2022, which itself indicates the complicity of Petitioner No. 1 in the aforesaid case. 14. He further submits that the materials in the case diary indicates the complicity of Petitioner No. 2 also in the alleged offence like that of Petitioner No.1. He further submits that the petitioners have failed to show any new ground, which would entitle them to grant of bail in this case. He also submits that custodial interrogation of both petitioners is essential for fair investigation. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary. 16. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on Page No.# 6/6 record. I have also gone through the case diary. 17. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners and the fact that they stand on a different footing from that of those accused persons who have already been granted anticipatory bail has been discussed in the paragraph 15 of the order dated 28.02.2025 in AB Case No. 250/2025 whereby the second anticipatory bail application filed by the above named petitioners was rejected. 18. The petitioners, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court have failed to show any new ground to reconsider their prayer for anticipatory bail for the third time when on previous two occasions same was rejected after consideration of the materials in the case diary. 19. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly dismissed. 20. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant