Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010110122026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1175/2026 SMT PUJA KALITA DAUGHTER OF- NRIPEN KALITA, WIFE OF- ISHWAR PAU RESIDENT OF- VILLAGEBANAMAJA, P.S-CHANGSARI DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM. PIN-781101 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SAIKIA, B DEKA,MR. A S ALI,MR. N K DAS,MR T KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 16.06.2026 Heard Mr. T Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in respect of Panbazar P.S. Case No.84/2026, whereby the petitioner, namely, Smt. Puja Kalita has prayed for anticipatory bail. Page No.# 2/2 3. There is a bank called Jana Small Finance Bank at Fancy Bazar. It is alleged that the petitioner Puja Kalita and her husband Iswar Paul approached 18 women of Amingaon locality and promised them to sanction loans from the aforesaid bank. Their bank accounts were also opened. Subsequently, when those persons went to the bank to enquire about the status of their loan, they came to know that an amount of Rs.55,000/- each had been sanctioned to every applicants. According to the informants, the ATM Card of the bank was collected by Puja Kalita and she had withdrawn the money from the accounts of those applicants, who were sanctioned loan of Rs.55,000/- each. 4. Mr. T Kalita submits that the petitioner is the mother of a infant child and she is ready to cooperate with the police investigation. According to Mr. Kalita the petitioner does not deserve to be detained in custody for the allegations brought against her. 5. Mr. Sarma on the other hand, referred to the contents of the case diary and submitted that the petitioner Puja Kalita is the master mind, who misappropriated large amount of money from the bank accounts of different persons. 6. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma has objected to the bail prayer of the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 8. There are sufficient materials to show that the petitioner had withdrawn money from the account of different persons, to whom the bank sanctioned loan of Rs.55,000/- each. It is a serious economic offence. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail as prayed for. 9. Therefore, the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner Smt. Puja Kalita is dismissed and disposed of. The CD shall be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant