Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020003802026 2026:GAU-NL:351 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./10/2026 SUKURJAN KHATUN MOTHER OF RABIKUL ISLAM @ BIKI, R/O HATIGAON, BHETAPARA, NEAR JAMA MASJID, HOUSE NO. 53, P.S. HATIGAON, DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : TOSHITEMJEN PONGENER, Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 11.06.2026 Heard the learned counsels Mr. Alam Hussain, Mr. D.J. Haloi and Mr. Rakibul Islam for the petitioner and Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned P.P. for the State. 2. Invoking Section 483 of the BNSS, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Dimapur West PS Case No. 0011/2026 under Section Page No.# 2/3 316(2)(5)/318(4)/61(2)/111/3(5) BNS, arising out of FIR dated 03.02.2026 lodged by one Puthaho Khale, Secretary, Rural Development Welfare Society, an NGO with allegations of fraud committed upon the bank account of their NGO. 3. The gist of the allegations is that one Tiawapang, who is a friend of the informant, had called him and said that some donation funds were available and as to whether their NGO would be interested. Thereupon, the informant stated that if the funds are clean he may be interested. He was assured that the funds were genuine. Subsequently, the present accused/petitioner and one Prabhat Singh came to process the funds and they arranged a meeting at Dimapur. However, it was told that the funds were ready but they should wait for some time. In the meantime, they requested the informant to let them use their NGO bank account for which their company will bear expenditure and assured that it was a clean transaction. 4. Subsequently, the informant received a call from the Branch Manager of the bank, in which their NGO account was maintained, informing about suspicious transactions. Thereafter, he received an e-mail stating that their bank account has been debit-frozen due to unusual activities upon the bank being informed by the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. On the basis of the FIR, a case was registered and investigation started. The accused was arrested on 21.03.2026 and is presently in judicial custody. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed 82 (eighty-two) days in custody and that he may be granted Page No.# 3/3 bail at this stage. He further submitted that out of the penal provisions given, the maximum punishment is 1 with 10 years and that the said provision would not apply to him. 6. The Case Diary has been received and the learned P.P. submitted that there are prima facie incriminating materials against the petitioner and that investigation is going on. It is submitted that there has been no procedural lapses. It is also submitted that the accused/petitioner had induced the informant in the process of committing the crime. 7. I have perused the relevant materials and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. I have also perused the highlighted portions of the case Diary indicated by the prosecution. 8. The materials prima facie indicate the involvement of the petitioner and others in sophisticated financial transactions of an illegal and criminal nature. The Investigating Officer has stated the reason for arresting him and not giving a prior notice is due to risk of flight. The said grounds appear bona fide. Despite the length of detention, considering the nature of offences and incriminating materials revealed by the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that it may not be prudent to grant bail to the accused without completion of investigation in the case of this nature. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected at this stage. 9. Return back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant