Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010025102026 2026:GAU-AS:2986 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/291/2026 PULAKESH DEKA S/O MOHESWAR DEKA, R/O ALAGJHARI 1 NO. GOSAI CHAPORI, P.S.MONGALDOI, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI, MR B DEORI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A N I HUSSAIN,MR. R DUBEY,MS. A B KAYASTHA,MS N B KAYASTHA BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 27-04-2026 Heard Mr. B K Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing for Page No.# 2/5 respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Sri Pulakesh Deka in connection with Palashbari P.S. Case No. 297/2025 under Sections 61(2)/338/340(2)/318(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner already appeared before the I/O in two occasions, wherein his statement is recorded by the I/O and thus he extended his cooperation in the investigation of this case. He further submitted that during the period, he was working as a Source Officer of the HDFC Bank and the bank account was opened in the name of Sainath Traders only after verification of the credentials which were produced in the name of the informant. However, it is a fact that he did not go for proper verification of the documents as he had trust on the Branch Manager and as per advice/instruction of the Branch Manager, he put his signature on the opening account after the signature put by the Branch Manager. He was on bonafide belief that the account which was opened in the name of the informant/proprietorship firm was verified by the Branch Manager and on the basis of which he did not go for further verification and put his signature accordingly. However, prior to the order dated 26.02.2026 he appeared before the I/O on receipt of the notice and extended his cooperation and after the order of interim pre-arrest bail he again appeared and cooperated in the investigation of the case. Accordingly, Mr. Gogoi submitted that the present petitioner is no way involved in any connivance with the other bank Page No.# 3/5 officials or the accused Sanjay Kumar Sarkar who opened the bank account in the name of the proprietorship firm of the informant. 5. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail he appeared before the I/O, cooperated in the investigation and his statement is also recorded by the I/O. Further he submitted that the co-accused Sanjay Kumar Sarkar was only provided with all the credentials of the informant only to institute a writ petition which he had misused and opened an account in the name of Sainath Traders using the credentials of the informant. Some of the account has already been transferred to his account which is maintained in HDFC Bank and some of the account had already been withdrawn by said Sanjay Kumar Sarkar. However, after the institution of the order the other bank accounts etc. were on hold and the accounts of said Sanjay Kumar Sarkar is now freezed by the order of the Court. He further submitted that there is no transfer of account in the name of the present petitioner. But, he was involved in the offence as he was supposed to be the Source Officer and he was supposed to do all the verification before opening the account in the name of the proprietorship firm of the informant. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that his custodial interrogation may be required to unearth some more facts of the case. 6. Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing for the informant respondent no. 2 submitted in this regard that there was a connivance of the bank officers including the present petitioner and the main accused Sanjay Kumar Sarkar under which account was opened in the name of the proprietorship firm of the informant. He further submitted that all the credentials were provided to the accused Sanjay Kumar Sarkar only to institute writ petition wherein the Page No.# 4/5 subsequent contempt petition was also filed but it was not for opening any account in the name of the proprietorship firm and behind the back of the informant the account was opened in the name of the proprietorship firm only with the connivance of the bank officials including the present petitioner. Though some of the accounts are now freezed as per the provision of the Court but, the main accused Sanjay Kumar Sarkar had already misappropriated some amount of money which has already been withdrawn by him. Accordingly, Mr. Dubey submitted that to unearth some more facts of the case and also to investigate in regards to the connivance of the bank officials along with the present petitioner, the custodial interrogation may be required and accordingly he raised objection in granting pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner. 7. After hearing the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Case Diary along with the annexures filed in the petition. It is an admitted fact that during the time of opening of the account the present petitioner was working as a source person of the bank and on the basis of verification of the source person, the account was opened in the name of the proprietorship firm of the informant but, in the same time it is also seen that all the credentials with which the co-accused Sanjak Kumar Sarkar produced the documents before the bank authority at the time of opening the bank account. However, from the submission made by learned counsel for the informant it is seen that all the credentials were provided to the co-accused Sanjay Kumar Sarkar only to institute a writ petition and not for opening any bank account in the back of the informant. From the statement made by the accused before the I/O and from the note of the I/O also it is seen that there was no proper verification at the time of opening the account. But, it is note of the I/O that the present petitioner has put his signature on the verification note Page No.# 5/5 only after signature put by the Bank Manager. As per instruction of the Bank Manager he prepared the verification note. However, the case is still under investigation and it is to be investigated as to who and how the account was opened without being authorized by the Sanjay Kumar Sarkar and as to whether there is any connivance of the present petitioner in the said offence. However, considering all the materials in the case record, note of the I/O and cooperation already extended by the present petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation. However, the petitioner shall appear before the I/O every fortnight to extend his cooperation, if required and as per direction of the I/O. 8. In view of this, the order of interim bail granted to the petitioner dated 26.02.2026 is hereby made absolute with the same terms and conditions with with direction to extend his cooperation as directed above. 9. With the above observations, the AB stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant