Gauhati High Court
Sudip Das vs The State Of Assam on 29 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010069992026
2026:GAU-AS:5939
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1034/2026
SUDIP DAS
S/O DIPAK KR. DAS
R/O BONGAIGAON, NATUN PARA, WARD NO.16, P.S. BONGAIGAON, DIST.
BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KHOUND, N.R. SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. M S HUSSAIN,MR. D K BAIDYA
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 29.04.2026.
Heard Mr. N.R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.
Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State
respondent and Mr. D.K. Baidya, learned counsel appearing for the informant.
This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of
Page No.# 2/6
regular bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Sudip Das who has been arrested
on 06.03.2026, in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 204/2025, under
Sections 406/420/465/468/120B of the IPC, with added Sections 403 & 409 of
the IPC.
The case diary is received and perused the same.
It is submitted by Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel that the accused/petitioner is
innocent and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. The petitioner
was an employee under the co-accused Manoj Kr. Harlalka who was authorized
to look after the three work orders which were received by the informant in the
name of proprietorship firm namely, M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Company. He
further submitted that one Bank Account was allegedly opened by one of the
co-accused Manoj Kr. Harlalka in the name of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading
Company which he is operating and the other account which has been opened
in Bongaigaon, wherein the phone number of the present accused petitioner is
provided in the bank account though he is not at all operating the said bank
account. The accused petitioner was only an employee under the co-accused
Manoj Kr. Harlalka. That apart, he has no role in the alleged offence. Further,
the co-accused Manoj Kr. Harlalka who is considered to be the prime accused of
the present case, has already got the anticipatory bail from this Court, which
was granted to him after perusal of the case diary. The accused petitioner is the
only person who got arrested in connection with this case and he is behind the
bar for last 54 days and thus, the I.O. has got sufficient opportunity to
interrogate him, keeping him in the custody. More so, after his arrest only,
Section 409 of the IPC has been added to make out a case to arrest the present
petitioner without any prior notice. However, there are no such materials or
Page No.# 3/6
ingredients against the present petitioner to attract Section 409 of the IPC,
which has been added after his arrest. However, the petitioner is still ready and
willing to extend his cooperation and also ready to provide all the documents
before the I.O. for further investigation of this case, if he is granted with the
privilege of bail.
Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that it is
a fact that the present accused petitioner was an employee under the co-
accused Manoj Kr. Harlalka and there are sufficient materials against the present
accused petitioner wherein his phone number was given while opening the bank
account in the name of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Company. During the
investigation, it was found that Section 409 of the IPC was required to be added
and accordingly, added Section 409 of the IPC. The investigation of the case is
still under process and hence, his further custodial interrogation may be
required to unearth some more facts of the case, wherein some bank officials
may also involved in the alleged offence. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P.,
Assam further submitted that the I.O. collected the bank accounts but the same
are yet to be sent for FSL examination and the investigation of the case is still
under process. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam accordingly raised
objection and submitted that this is not at all a fit case to grant bail at this
stage.
Mr. Baidya, the learned counsel for the informant submitted in this regard that
M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Company is the proprietorship firm of the informant
wherein co-accused Manoj Kr. Harlalka was authorized to represent the firm of
the informant and in connivance of the present petitioner along with the bank
officials, he opened two accounts in the name of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading
Page No.# 4/6
Company and he was authorized to look after the three work orders which were
given in favour of the informant and after completion of the work, the money
was also deposited in the bank but in connivance with the bank officials and the
present petitioner, said Manoj Kr. Harlalka had opened another account in the
name of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Company in Bongaigaon and the present
petitioner was operating the said bank account. It has come to the knowledge
of the informant that around Rs.1.48 crore has been misappropriated by
operating those bank accounts and the bank account ended with 980 seems to
be operated by the present accused petitioner wherein his mobile phone
numbers etc. were also found in the Bank Statement. However, the Bank did not
give the detail of the bank account operated by the present petitioner as well as
by Manoj Kr. Harlalka, even after filing their representation before the bank
authority. Mr. Baidya, the learned counsel accordingly submitted that there are
sufficient materials against the present accused petitioner who is operating bank
account wherein huge amount of money was misappropriated in the name of
M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Company. Accordingly, he raised objection and
submitted that this may not be a fit case to enlarge the accused person on bail.
Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have
also perused the case diary and the annexure filed along with the present bail
petition.
From the materials available in the case diary and the note of the I.O., it is seen
that two bank accounts have been opened by the main co-accused Manoj Kr.
Harlalka and the present petitioner is stated to assisted the other co-accused in
opening those accounts and one bank account ended with 980 is operated by
Page No.# 5/6
the present accused petitioner, who was the joint account holder in the said
bank account. But from the perusal of the case record, it is seen that the main
accused in the present case is Manoj Kr. Harlalka, who was the authorized
person of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Company and taking that advantage, he
not only misappropriated the amount which was received in the name of M/s.
Shree Ganesh Trading Company and also opened the bank account by forging
the signature of the proprietor, etc.
There are some incriminating materials against the present petitioner also and
basically he assisted the other co-accused namely, Manoj Kr. Harlalka in
operating those bank accounts and misappropriated some amount of money.
The investigation is still under process and considering the fact that present
accused person is in custody since last 54 days and at the same time, he was
also under the police remand for some days, the I.O. has got sufficient
opportunity to interrogate the present petitioner, keeping him in custody. Hence,
further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the purpose of
investigation of this case. However, his cooperation may be required by the I.O.
during the course of investigation, as there may be some documents which are
to be collected or verified by the I.O.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds it to be
a fit case wherein the privilege of bail can be extended to the present accused
petitioner. .
Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand) only with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned
CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, the accused petitioner, namely, Sudip Das be
Page No.# 6/6
enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM,
Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, without prior permission, and
(iii) that the petitioner shall submit copy of his Aadhar Card and PAN Card
before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.
(iv) that the petitioner shall extend his further cooperation with the I.O., if
needed.
In terms of above, this bail application stands allowed and disposed
of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant