Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010128772026 2026:GAU-AS:9454 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1688/2026 RANJIT RAI AND ANR SO SURAJ RAI, RO H NO 1 DR B C DAS LAND, PO AND PS BHARALUMUKH, DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: AMIT KUMAR RAI SO ASHOK KUMAR RAI TEMPORARY RO NARIKALBARI SUB BYLANE 4 H NO 1, PO AND PS GEETANAGAR DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM, PERMANENT RO DHIRAJ NAGAR PO AND PS FARIDABAD DIST HARIYAN VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR P SONOWAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 02.07.2026 Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. B. Page No.# 2/3 Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the petitioners, namely, Ranjit Rai and Amit Kumar Rai, who have been languishing in jail hazot since 01.06.2026, in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No.345/2026 under Section 316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/61(2) of the BNS, for grant of bail. 3. The records that the ejahar was lodged by Sanjib Deb Choudhury, AR of OM Innovative LLP, for and on behalf of OM Innovative LLP and FFTC Projects Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that two companies work in close association with each other and share common directors. It is alleged, inter alia, that Amit Kumar Rai, an employee of FFTC Projects Pvt. Ltd., have abused his position of trust and authority and induced the co-conspirator and co-accused businesses and their owners/shops to raise deliberately inflated, false and fabricated bills against the companies for electrical materials and services. It is stated that the extra amount/inflated amount was transferred to the bank account of the wife of Amit Kumar Rai, i.e. Kanchan Kumari, through said co-conspirator and co-accused businesses and the owners/shops. It is stated that for the period covering from 28.08.2025 to 27.05.2026 almost Rs.23,82,107/- was deposited in the bank account of Kanchan Kumari, out of which Rs.8,67,395/- has already been withdrawn. 4. The petitioners were arrested on 01.06.2026. 5. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that considering the sentences pertaining to the alleged offences, notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was not given to the petitioners and also submits that the checklist is inadequate. In support of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the leading decisions of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. Drawing the attention to the documents annexed, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioner No.1 is suffered heart attack recently and is undergoing treatment. Page No.# 3/3 6. The case diary has been received. The learned Additional P.P. submits that the investigation is going on and not yet completed. 7. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner No.2 is a co-accused, who was given notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and her statement has been recorded and based on the same, further investigation is going on. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner No.2 was granted interim anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 8. I have perused the materials available on record including the case diary and considered the submissions. 9. The point No.9 of the grounds of arrest as part of the forwarding report, the I.O. has mentioned the reasons for dispensing with the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS. I have perused the same and satisfied regarding the said ground, Notices under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS are in order. Also perused the checklist. Case diary reveals incriminating materials. Perused the statements of two of the witnesses, who are stated to be owners of electrical shops and they have implicated by way of involvement of the petitioner No.2 in taking commission in purchases. The prima facie involvement of the petitioner No.1 also emerges from the materials found in the case diary. 10. In the entire facts and circumstances, the bail application stands rejected. Return the case diary. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Pranjal Das JUDGE