Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010079382026 2026:GAU-AS:5734 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1083/2026 RAHUL RAJ SON OF VIJAY KUMAR SINHA R/O VILL- NONIYAR TOLA, BETTIAH, P.S. BETTIAH, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S E M AHMADIA, LEVIS HAOLAI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 27.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S. E. M. Ahmadia for the petitioner Rahul Raj. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 17.03.2026 in connection with Haflong Police Station Case No. 13/2026 under Page No.# 2/3 Sections 79/238 of the BNS read with Sections 66E, 67 and 67A of the IT Act, 2000. 3. Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the victim went to his chamber in connection with some issue relating to UPI. The petitioner is the Branch manager of SBI, Haflong Branch. It is also alleged that the petitioner while checking the victim’s phone, without the knowledge of the victim transferred some objectionable and private materials available in the victim’s phone to his personal device (mobile) through whatsapp. 5. The victim learnt about the misdeed later through her device which was in sync with the personal device of the victim. This impelled the victim to lodge the FIR against the petitioner. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Sharma has raised objection stating that bail cannot be considered without going through the case diary. 7. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 8. It is submitted that the order dated 04.04.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, clearly deliberates the entire narrative of the incident. The FIR is also clear and moreover, the victim has submitted the affidavit that this FIR was lodged on a misunderstanding. The petitioner being a Bank employer is not a flight risk. 9. Considering all aspects, the petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Jurisdictional Court/Elaka Magistrate, under the conditions that: Page No.# 3/3 (i) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, (ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of investigation, and (iii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 10. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 11. In terms of the above observation, Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant