Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010059672026 2026:GAU-AS:6893 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/637/2026 MOFIDUL ISLAM S/O ABDUL KASEM, VILL. GOROIMARI, P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 19.05.2026. Heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with Laharighat P.S. Case No. 201/2025 u/s 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/ Page No.# 2/5 340(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is innocent and no way connected with the offence as alleged cyber crime. Rather he is one of the victim wherein around an amount of Rs. 20 lacs has been siphoned off from his loan account. He submitted that the other co-accused had assured him for the loan and on good faith only, he put his signatures in some of the documents and the loan amount was accordingly deposited in his account but soon after deposition of the said amount in his loan account, immediately the amount was siphoned off by the co-accused persons. Coming to know about the same, he immediately lodged an FIR but the same has not been registered and as such, he lodged a complaint before the Police Commissioner, Dispur and the said complaint is still pending before the concerned Police Officer. Mr. Poddar, the learned counsel further submitted that the accused petitioner had also extended his cooperation in the investigation of the case and as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner already appeared twice before the I.O. and extended his cooperation. However, the petitioner is still ready and willing to extend his further cooperation, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam raised vehement objection and submitted that it is cyber crime where a huge racket is involved in the alleged offence. He further submitted that around Rs. 20 lacs was credited in the account of co-accused Rahul Alom @ Firdus Alom and from the materials in the case diary, it reveals that more than Rs. 3.2 crores is deposited in the account of Page No.# 3/5 said co-accused Rahul Alom @ Firdus Alom and from his account it was transmitted to various accounts in the entire State and for the transmission of this amount, co-accused Rahul Alom @ Firdus Alom also got commission for the same. He further submitted that the present accused petitioner is also involved in the present case, wherein there were transactions and transmissions of money in different account from the account of the present account petitioner and for this, he also receiving huge amount of commission for the same. Mr. Sarma further submitted that the case is still under investigation and the I.O. is trying his best to know the source of from where the money was deposited in various accounts of the accused persons. Mr. Sarma accordingly submitted that to know the source of deposition as well as to unearth some more facts of the case behind that the huge racket of cyber crime, the custodial interrogation of the present accused petitioner is very much essential. He further submitted that the statement made by the accused petitioner before the I.O. is not at all believable, wherein he simply deposed that he is not aware about the source from where the money is deposited in his account or it was transmitted to the various accounts. Thus, the present accused petitioner is also not fully extending his cooperation in the investigation of this case. Mr. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the accused petitioner the privilege of pre- arrest bail at this stage. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary. It reveals from the case diary that the clothe store which was in the name of the petitioner had opened various accounts in the name of different individuals and Page No.# 4/5 while opening the bank accounts, the petitioner had provided different addresses. Further, it reveals from the case diary that more than Rs. 3 crores have been credited in the name of one of the co-accused i.e. Rahul Alom @ Firdus Alom and from his bank account, various transactions have been made to various accounts in the entire State and in the same time, there were various transactions are also being found from the account of the present petitioner and Rs. 20 lacs was found credited in the account of the co-accused Rahul Alom @ Firdus Alom. Further, from the case diary, it reveals that the present accused petitioner along with the another co-accused had transferred the money in the account of co-accused Rahul Alom @ Firdus Alom from his account and for transferring of the money to the account of the co-accused, he also gets commission and from this account, the money was transferred in the other bank accounts, as per direction of the present accused petitioner. Thus, from the materials so far collected by the I.O., it is seen that the present accused petitioner seems to be the one of the main culprit behind the entire cyber crime and the investigation is still under process to know the source of money which was transacted to the account of the present accused petitioner. From the materials available in the case diary, it also reveals that the investigation is still under process to know the source from where the money was transferred to the account of the present accused petitioner as well as in the bank accounts of the other co-accused. It is a fact that till date no person came before the I.O. with a complaint for cheating or misappropriation but the investigation is still under process to know the fact as to how the money was credited in the bank account of these accused persons and the probability of involvement of many other accused also cannot be denied at this stage. Page No.# 5/5 During the inquiry, the present accused petitioner also could not make any proper explanation as to how the huge amount of money was credited in his account which was transferred to various bank accounts in the name of different individuals. It is not a case that simply one loan account was misused by the co- accused but it is seen that the present accused petitioner is the person from whom the money was credited from different sources and that was transferred to different individuals. Thus, it is seen that one big racket is involved behind this cyber crime and the investigation is still under process to unearth basically the source of money from where it was credited in the account of the present accused persons. Further, the probability of hampering or tampering with the investigation of the case also cannot be denied at this stage, considering the nature and gravity of the offence. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that it is not at all a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused petitioner and custodial interrogation is very much necessary, considering the nature of the offence. Accordingly, the bail prayer made by the present accused petitioner is herby rejected and the order of interim granted on 23.03.2026 is hereby stands vacated. This pre-arrest bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant