Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010263432025 2026:GAU-AS:1024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2811/2025 SRI SANJAY ROY S/O LT NONI GOPAL SENGUPTA, R/O AMRITPUR, NO. 2 SILAPATHAR BLOCK, P.O. SILAPATHAR, DISTRICT - DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN - 784523 VERSUS THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. Advocate for the Petitioner : S MITRA, MS. A KALITA,MR A K BORO,MR S.MITRA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 29.01.2026 Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, the learned Standing Counsel, CBI. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for pre-arrest Page No.# 2/3 bail in respect of ACB Guwahati P.S. Case No.RC0172024E0008 under Sections 120B/406/419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 4/5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 r/w Section 21(1)/21(2)/21(3)/22/23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 1978 arising out of Tamarhat P.S. Case No.55/2024 and Tamarhat P.S. Case No.68/2024. 3. The petitioner Sanjay Roy with Sanjay Bhagat were running a financial institution where they had invited people to invest money and to have high returns. They have already collected a huge amount of money from public and subsequently disappeared. Police arrested the petitioners out the side the State of Assam. On 26.08.2024, they were granted transit bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24 Pargana, Barasat, West Bengal so that they can appear before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri by 28.08.2024. 4. The petitioner and Sanjay Bhagat did not comply with the said direction, rather the present petitioner has filed this application praying for pre-arrest bail. 5. Ms. M. Kumari has objected to this bail application on the ground that the petitioners are involved in economic offences and therefore custodial interrogation is necessary in this matter. 6. In State represented by CBI v. Anil Sarma, in a case under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is a tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. 7. Mr. Mitra has submitted that the petitioner Sanjay Roy was an employee under the other accused Sanjay Bhagat who ran the entire company and this petitioner only complied with the orders given by his employer. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. Page No.# 3/3 9. There is no doubt that the allegation brought against the present petitioner involves an economic offence and a thorough investigation is necessary. This Court has decided to agree with Ms. Kumari that custodial interrogation is also necessary in this case. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant