Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010255592025 2026:GAU-AS:9173 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2730/2025 MD ABU SAYED S/O - MD. ABDUL JUBBERR/O- NO.3 DHARMAPRLP/S- LALUKDIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR MINTU SAIKIA, MS. B DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : AB/2680/2025 HEMANTA HAZARIKA S/O- LT SABHARAM HAZARIKA R/O-BANGALMARA THENGAL P/S- BIHPURIA DIST-LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR MINTU SAIKIA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24.06.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr.M.Saikia for the petitioners, Hemanta Hazarika in AB/2680/2025 and Md. Abu Sayed in AB/2730/2025 who have filed these applications under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 214/2025 under Sections 61/316 (1) (8)/3(5) of BNS 2023. 2. Also heard learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.K.K.Parashar for the State respondent. 3. Both the cases have been taken up together for disposal as they arise out of the same cause of action. 4. The FIR unfolds that Hemanta Hazarika, in-charge GP Secretary of Sonapur GP (erstwhile Tinithengia GP) and petitioner Abu Sayed, GRS of erstwhile Tinithengia GP (Sonapur GP) were found responsible for financial irregularities and misappropriation of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Grameen Fund in Tinithengia GP. Page No.# 3/5 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no time period has been mentioned in the FIR. The GP is not continuous, erstwhile Tinithengia GP. Now it is the Sonapur GP. The offence alleged is not continuous. It has to be committed within a certain period of time. Without the window of time being mentioned in the FIR, the petitioners are highly prejudiced. The FIR was lodged on 01.11.2025. It is also submitted that the FIR is devoid of any specific allegation except an omnibus statement that the petitioners have been responsible for financial irregularities and misappropriation of PMAYG fund, which has been alleged without any time period. On this ground, the petitioners were granted interim bail vide order dated 13.11.2025 and 19.11.2025 respectively. 6. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection against the petitions. The petitioners through their acts have deprived eligible beneficiaries from obtaining the benefits of PMAYG benefits. There are incriminating materials in the Case Diary. They have common funds allotted under the PMAYG welfare scheme for economically weaker beneficiaries. They are alleged of economic offence as they have misappropriated funds affecting public administration and causing loss to the government exchequer. It is submitted that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, investigation may be adversely affected as there is strong likelihood of tampering of documentary evidence. 7 I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary. However, I have considered the fact that both the petitioners have appeared before the I.O. They have co-operated with the investigation and their statements have been recorded. Custodial interrogation may not be necessary. Thereby, I deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to both the petitioners under certain conditions. Page No.# 4/5 8. Accordingly, the interim order dated 13.11.2025, granting interim bail to the petitioner, Hemanta Hazarika in AB No.2680/2025 and the interim order dated 19.11.2025, granting interim bail to the petitioner Md.Abu Sayed in AB No.2730/2025 are hereby made absolute. Both the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions: i) Both the petitioners shall refrain from such activities with which they are alleged, ii) Both the petitioners shall appear before the I.O. on every fortnight till completion of investigation, iii) Both the petitioners shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them, iv) Both the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and v) Both the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. 9. On breach of any of the above conditions, pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners shall automatically stand cancelled. 10 In terms of the above observations, the pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. 11. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant