Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010114222026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1514/2026 AMAL DAS AND ANR S/O- LATE SARAT DAS R/O- DADU CHOWK ADINGIRI P.S- JALUKBARI DIST- GUWAHATI, ASSAM. 2: RAJIB HALOI S/O- HITESH HALOI R/O-SUGEN SHREE P.S- MUSHALPUR DIST- BAKSA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K ISLAM, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 17.06.2026 Heard Mr. K Islam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Bidyut Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioners, namely, 1. Amal Das and 2. Rajib Haloi have prayed for releasing them on bail, after they Page No.# 2/2 were arrested in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No.84/2026. 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 convinced 18 ladies to open bank accounts and promised them to sanction loans from the aforesaid bank. 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, but they did not get the money. Their ATM cards were used by Puja Kalita to withdraw money from the accounts of 18 ladies and the money were misappropriated by the present two petitioners. 4. The present petitioners, namely, Amal Das and Rajib Haloi are the employees of the aforesaid bank. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. I have also gone through the statements of the petitioners made before police. 6. This is a serious economic offence. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail as prayed for. Adequate opportunities should be given to the Investigating Agency to investigate the case. 7. This Court is of the opinion that allowing the petitioners to go on bail would hamper the investigation of the case. 8. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioners is rejected and disposed of accordingly. The CD shall be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant