Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010201252025 2026:GAU-AS:917 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2163/2025 RUBIN ALAM SON OF TAHIBULLAH SHEIKH, R/O VILL AND P.O. PATUAKATA, P.S. MIKIRBHETA, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 28.01.2026 Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Rubin Alam who was apprehending his arrest in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Mikirbheta P.S. Case No. 107/2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/319(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the case: At 10:30 AM, the complainant namely Munmi Devi daughter of Taneswar Nath, of village- Habibarangabari, P.S.-Mikirbheta, Dist.- Morigaon (Assam), M/No. 8753810993 lodged a FIR before the OC Mikirbheta PS stating inter-alia that one accused woman namely Trishna Devi, wife of Dipendra Nath, Village- Habibarangabari, P.S.- Mikirbheta, Dist.- Morigaon (Assam) has been cheating innocent villagers by giving false Information about a "government scheme". The said accused woman approached the complainant and other women claiming that money would be deposited in the bank accounts under a special government scheme. Thereafter, the complainant shared her account details to the said accused woman and later she found that money deposited was not from any educational or student scheme but from the "Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), which is only meant for pregnant mothers for safe delivery. The said accused woman collected Rs. 1800/- out of Rs 2100/- from every woman, leaving only Rs. 300/ with the account holder. Thus, the said accused woman misused the JSY scheme and cheated almost all women in complainant's village. The victims include college students, widows, non-pregnant women and elderly women, none of the whom are eligible for the JSY scheme. 4. The petitioner has preferred this bail application on the apprehension of arrest as he was called by the police officer and this Court vide order dated 05.09.2025 had granted interim protection to the petitioner. 5. The case diary as called for has been received along with bail objection submitted by the I.O. Page No.# 3/3 6. On perusal of the same, it appears that there is sufficient incriminating material against the accused-petitioner and it appears that he has played a pivotal role in the commission of the alleged offences. 7. Having regard to the above and the probable need for custodial interrogation, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected at this stage. 8. The order of interim pre-arrest bail dated 05.09.2025, stands vacated. 9. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant