Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010289612025 2026:GAU-AS:616 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4150/2025 GITA PANDAY @ GITA SHARMA D/O LATE BISWAMITRA SHARMA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF C/O NANDALA PANDEY, DUDHPATIL PT-VI, P.S- SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PANCHAYAT ROAD, NEAR MULTAM, DZIRE FOR LIFE, P.S- SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR U S BORGOHAIN, H MAZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 20.01.2026 Heard Mr. U S Borghohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/5 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Gita Panday, seeking regular bail in connection with Silchar P.S Case No. 1203/2025 under Sections 111(3)/111(4)/111(5)/111(6)/117/296/308(5)/318(4)/351(2)/353/356(3)/61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 03.12.2025 one Ratna Paul lodged an FIR before the Silchar Police Station stating inter-alia that the accused person has recently circulated a video through social media platforms wherein she declared that the Judiciary and Police authorities act only in exchange for money from the public, thereby defaming, scandalizing, and lowering the reputation of the justice delivery system before the general public. In the said video, she attempted to provoke distrust against lawful institutions by alleging that administrative and legal processes are conducted corruptly and selectively, thereby misleading the public and spreading false propaganda. It was further alleged that the FIR named accused person Gita Pandey @ Gita Sharma, along with her associates, extorted an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) about one month ago from her by falsely assuring that she would vacate her shop i.e. Sabji Shop No.78 at Fatak Bazar, Silchar from unlawful occupation by another person. Despite receiving the said amount, she neither Page No.# 3/5 vacated the shop nor returned the money, thereby cheating her through fraudulent misrepresentation. The accused person and her associates have formed an unlawful organised group under the banner "Dzire for Life", which is operating like a criminal ring in the society, collecting money from innocent people by instilling fear of unlawful consequences and making fraudulent assurances relating to justice or administrative benefit. The accused person and her associates have been engaging in illegal activities such as extortion, intimidation, wrongful financial collection, intrusion upon individual privacy, and exercising self-proclaimed authority of the Government or competent authority, which shows an organised, premeditated and criminally conspiratorial behaviour. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 04.12.2025 and since then, has spent 46 days in custody including three days in police remand. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that except the offence under Section 111(3) BNS, the statutory period of detention in respect of the other offences is 60 days only and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has spent 46 days in custody, the prayer for bail may be allowed. 8. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 111(3) BNS is not attracted in the facts of the present case, as the FIR does not disclose the ingredients thereof concerning organised crime. Page No.# 4/5 9. Lastly, it is submitted that there has been violation of the provisions of Section 35 BNSS because of which the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated. 10. Per contra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits with reference to the case diary, that there is more than sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner of her involvement in an organised extortion of money from members of the society in the guise of running an NGO and therefore, Section 111(3) BNS is squarely attracted. 11. Upon perusal of the CD, it appears that the submission of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has sufficient force. 12. It is further stated in the bail objection submitted by the I.O, inter alia that the petitioner was running an unregistered NGO and by way of this representation, she was collecting money from vulnerable persons under the pretext of settling the disputes by adopting a systematic modus, apparently by way of extortion with the connivance of her associates including one Advocate and further investigation is necessary to trace the financial trail, digital evidence and involvement of other associates and there is strong apprehension that if released on bail, the accused may influence and threaten the witnesses, most of who are known to her. Page No.# 5/5 13. Upon perusal of the arrest memo, as pointed by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, it appears that the same was issued to the petitioner and her signature is also present along with the signature of her relative and prima facie, therefore, there appears to be no violation of Section 35 BNSS. 14. Having regard to all of the above, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. Send back the CD. JUDGE Comparing Assistant