Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010029222026 2026:GAU-AS:8520 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/322/2026 RAJDEEP DUTTA S/O LATE ........ DUTTA, R/O 27, AMIYA NAGAR, KARBI CLUB, DHOPULIA, SAWKUCHI, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI 781040, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MR. S SARKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. B SHARMA(INFORMANT),MR B CHOUDHURY(INFORMANT),W AHMED(INFORMANT) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 15.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is the second application under Section 482 of the BNSS, filed by the petitioner, namely, Rajdeep Dutta seeking pre arrest bail in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 0654/2025 under Section 316(2)/318(4)/336(3) of the BNSS. 3. An earlier bail application being AB No. 2469/2025 was rejected by this Court by order dated 04.11.2025 after perusal of the case diary and considering the incriminating material therein relating to misappropriation of an amount to the tune of Rs. 49,00,856/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after interim protection was granted in the present bail application the petitioner had appeared before the I.O. and his statement was recorded and he has also produced the necessary documents. 5. The learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant is an organization that has been entrusted with the trust of setting up health centres in the state of Assam, and the BTAD as well as the in the state of Meghalaya and the money misappropriated by the petitioner was to be used for the Page No.# 3/3 purpose of providing health services in the aforesaid health centre to the public. 6. Upon perusal of the case diary which has been produced once again, there appears sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner and it appears that he has himself confessed to the aforesaid acts in his statement before the I.O. 7. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the fact that no new ground has been made out pursuant to the rejection of his earlier bail application, I find no reason to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly the prayer for bail stands rejected. The order of interim pre arrest bail stands vacated. 8. Petition stands disposed of. 9. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant