Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010103142026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1108/2026 SAJIDUL HOQUE S/O- SIRAJUL HOQUE,R/O- BAGIDARA No.1,P.O-BAGIDARA,P.S-BIJNI,DIST- CHIRANG, ASSAM,PIN-783391. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ISLAM, MR SAIFUL ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 12.06.2026 Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. By this application, the petitioner has sought for pre-arrest bail in connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 32/2026 under Section 61(2) Page No.# 2/3 (a)/318(4)/316(2)/336(3) of BNS, 2023 R/W Section -66(C)/66 (D) of IT Act, 2000 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 362/2026). The FIR dated 14.04.2026 reveals that on a reliable secret information the police personnel raided a house owned by one Latfor Rahman and found eight persons in the said house and it was also found that those accused persons were involved in cyber crime activities. During the search, the accused persons eight in numbers were arrested and incriminating materials were recovered from their joint possession indicating their involvement in cyber fraud activities. The police interrogated the accused persons and it was revealed in the said interrogation, that they were involved in cheating by impersonating themselves as employees of Bajaj Finance and they offered loans to the unsuspecting customers and after that they take the payments from the customers in the name of insurance and they do not make any further contacts with them. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not found amongst the eight accused persons involved in cyber crime activity in the said house and subsequently his name surfaced on the statement made by his brother namely Rofiqul Hoque, who stated to have revealed before the police personnel that he and his brother i.e. the petitioner are the main facilitators of the offence and it is they who provided sim cards, mobile phones etc and was operating a fake call center. The learned Counsel further submits that the police personnel have visited his house and that although the offence mentioned in the FIR entails a punishment for a term of maximum 7 years, the petitioner should have been served with a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 and that the same has not been done. Page No.# 3/3 On the other hand, Mr. K.K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case diary revealed that the first information was received in respect of running call center in the house of said Latfor Rahman and on raiding the said house, eight accused persons were arrested having found involved in cyber crime activity and that thereafter another information was received that a fake call center was operated upon also in the house of the petitioner and on raiding the same, the petitioner's brother was arrested who had revealed that he and the petitioner are involved in the offence. He also submitted that the co- accused, who were arrested in pursuant to the first information had also revealed that the petitioner along with his brother are the main facilitators of the crime and that the money collected from the customers are deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsels and mainly on the ground that all the accused persons including the brother of the petitioner had implicated the petitioner, who has been stated to be the main accused person and seeing the offence of cheating the innocent public, this Court does not deem it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant