Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010055832026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/581/2026 MD ISLAM UDDIN AND ANR S/O MD. ABDUL MAZID R/O VILL- HATIJUJUA P.S. JAJORI DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM 2: NAZMA AKHTAR S/O MD. ISLAM UDDIN R/O VILL- HATIJUJUA P.S. JAJORI DIST. NAGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 08.05.2026 Page No.# 2/4 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Ahmed for the petitioners namely, (i) Md. Islam Uddin, (ii) Nazma Akhta, who have filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with Jagiroad Police Station Case No. 07/2025 under Sections 120(b)/420/409/468 of the IPC. 2. Heard Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 3. The FIR unfolds that the accused No. 1, Himangshu Deka was the Branch manager, (earlier to informant) and the accused No. 2, Bishnu Prasad Behera was an Agriculture Officer of the said Jagiroad branch of the Punjab National Bank, Morigaon. The accused No. 1 and 2 named in the FIR in collusion with accused No. 3, M/S Arin Tractors, a partnership firm of the partners Md. Islam Uddin and Nazma Akhtar, sanctioned and disbursed tractor loan to total 42 persons and granted loan involving Rs. 227.99 lacs for a period ranging from 19.07.2021 to 30.05.2023. 4. It is alleged that after disbursement of loan, as no payment/EMI was coming in the accounts, as a result the loan account became NPA. Thereafter, the Bank initiated enquiry and contacted the 42 persons from whom the Bank could know that they never received any tractor from accused No. 3. 5. The petitioners are the partners of the firm named as accused No. 3 in the FIR. It is further alleged that the payment was directly made in the account of the accused No. 3. The accused No. 1 and 2 named in the FIR committed fraud in disbursement of loan in collusion with the present petitioners. After departmental enquiry, the Bank found that both the accused No. 1 and 2, i.e., Himangshu Deka and Bishnu Prasad Behera in collusion with the present petitioners committed fraud in their official capacity. Thereafter, the Bank Page No.# 3/4 suspended both the accused No. 1 and 2. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to bail on parity as the prime accused who in their official capacity had sanctioned the loan of Rs. 227.99 lacs. 7. The petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court to the orders dated 05.02.2025 in connection with AB No. 224/2025 and 02.02.2026 in connection with AB No. 186/2026, both the prime accused Himangshu Deka and Bishnu Prasad Behera were granted anticipatory bail. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that the accused No. 1 and 2 are involved with a major Bank fraud whereby more than Rs. 2 lacs was misappropriated by the miscreants. There are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioners. Fake loanees were created as well as fake pictures were created for wrongful gain. 9. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.PC clearly implicates that the petitioners acted in collusion with Bank officials, Himangshu Deka and Bishnu Prasad Behera and jointly misappropriated Rs. 227.99 lacs. 10. They have misappropriated public money and deprived the beneficiaries from the benefits of getting the vehicles sanctioned in their favour. 11. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioners. Defalcation of public money cannot be ruled out. 12. It appears that investigation may be adversely effected if the petitioners are insulated by an order of anticipatory bail. Investigation is still progressing. 13. Considering the gravity of the offence and considering all aspects, petition with prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected at this stage. 14. In terms of the above observation, this anticipatory bail stands disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 15. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant