Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 24 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010128272025
2025:GAU-AS:9511
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1356/2025
SANIDUL HOQUE
SON OF SAKMAN ALI
R/O VILL-KHATANIAPARA
P.O. AND P.S. DHULA
DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM
PIN-784146.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI, MS K TAYE,MS. M KHATUN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 24.07.2025
Heard Mr. T. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
Page No.# 2/4
This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant
of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in
connection with Dhula P.S. Case No. 63/2025, under Section 120(B)/420/406 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same.
It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the
present accused/petitioner is a student of B.Sc 2 nd Semester and he is no way
connected in the alleged offence. The petitioner is not aware as to why the
police is searching for him, despite his complete non-involvement in the alleged
offence. Mr. Bhuyan also raised the issue that although the present F.I.R. was
lodged on 26.05.2025, the case has been registered under Indian Penal Code
(IPC), even though the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 had already come
into force with effect from 01.07.2024. However, he submitted that the
accused/petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further
investigation of this case if he is granted with some protection in the form of
pre-arrest bail.
Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this
regard that from the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that the
present accused/petitioner is also involved in the alleged offence and he, along
with some other co-accused persons, procured the Aadhar Cards and PAN Cards
of several individuals and used the same to open mule accounts and through
those accounts, they carried out various suspicious monetary transactions and
committed financial fraud inflicting heavy financial losses to the citizen
nationwide for their wrongful gain. He further submitted that the present
Page No.# 3/4
accused/petitioner was actively involved in the said conspiracy and therefore his
custodial interrogation is very much necessary for the interest of investigation as
the case is still under investigation. Accordingly, he raised vehement objection in
granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage.
After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides,
I have also perused the case record as well as the Case Diary. From the
materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that the modus operandi of the
present accused/petitioner, along with the other accused persons, in connection
with this case was initially to collect the Aadhar and PAN details from various
individuals and with the help of fingerprint scanning devices, they opened
multiple mule accounts and thereby they allegedly used to carry out huge
monetary transactions resulting in significant financial fraud and loss to citizens
across the country. It is also seen that from the statement of some of the
witnesses as well as the accused that the accused persons have been
committing such kind of fraudulent acts for more than 1 (one) year. It is further
seen that the present accused/petitioner is also took active part in creation of
mule accounts and thereby misappropriated huge amount of money through
this financial fraud.
In regards to the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the case has been registered under Indian Penal Code despite the coming into
force of BNSS, 2023 on 01.07.2024, it is observed that such irregularity, if any,
may be rectified by the Investigating Officer by making a prayer before the
Court below for alteration of the Sections of law. However, merely on this
ground, the prayer for pre-arrest bail cannot be considered at this stage.
Page No.# 4/4
In view of the above discussions and also considering the gravity of the
offence as well as the active role attributed to the petitioner, I am of the
considered view that this is not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest
bail to the present accused/petitioner as the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner may be necessary for a fair and through investigation. Accordingly,
the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands rejected.
In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant