Disposed¶33

Sri Babul Kumar v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC8 Sept 2025AB/1770/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail / pre-arrest bail; S. 482 BNSS 2023; IPC Ss. 120(B)/420/468/471/409/406; CID P.S Case No. 1/2016; Canara Bank Ulubari banking fraud; accused no.4 employee of M/s Maa Bagala Enterprise; co-accused Jumi Das and Ranjeeb Hazarika; interim bail dated 29.07.2025 made absolute; delayed investigation since 2016; conditions — cooperation and no tampering with evidence; Gauhati High Court; Justice Pranjal Das; Babul Kumar v. State of Assam; bail petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail made absolute, subject to conditions of continued full cooperation in the remaining investigation and non-hampering/non-tampering with evidence; violation of conditions may entail cancellation of bail; case diary directed to be returned. ¶33

Sri Babul Kumar Vs the State of Assam — Anticipatory Bail | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.07.2025 should be made absolute, subject to conditions. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.07.2025 is made absolute, subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall continue to render full cooperation in the remaining investigation and shall not hamper or tamper with evidence.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

In making the interim bail absolute, the Court took into account the lapse of time since registration of the 2016 FIR, the cooperation rendered by the petitioner during the interim-bail period, and the limited nature of the adverse materials revealed against him as submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Pranjal Das, J.), AB/1770/2025, decided 09.09.2025 — Anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 by Sri Babul Kumar, named as accused no.4 in CID P.S Case No. 1/2016 registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/409/406 of IPC on an ejahar by the Manager, Canara Bank, Ulubari, alleging fraudulent bank transactions at the behest of Jumi Das and her husband Ranjeeb Hazarika. Petitioner claimed to be a mere employee of M/s Maa Bagala Enterprise without complicity; FIR dates back to 2016 yet investigation remains pending; petitioner had appeared and his statement stood recorded, and interim bail had been granted on 29.07.2025. Considering the elapsed time, his cooperation in investigation and the limited adverse materials indicated by the State, the Court made the interim pre-arrest bail absolute, subject to continued cooperation and non-tampering with evidence, and disposed of the petition; breach of conditions may entail cancellation. Case diary directed to be returned. No precedents cited or discussed.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010165242025

2025:GAU-AS:12285

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : AB/1770/2025

¶6

SRI BABUL KUMAR

¶7

S/O LATE ANANT KUMAR R/O VILL.-DHAKAPARA, P.O.-DHEKIPARA,P.S.SIPAJHAR, DISTRICT-DARRANG, PIN- 784145, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. MASUM ALAM, MS D MAHANTA,MR B M DEKA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

¶13

ORDER

¶14

09.09.2025

¶15

Heard Mr. B.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶18

2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Sri Babul Kumar , seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CID P.S Case No. 1/2016 registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/409/406 of IPC.

¶19

3. The gist of allegation in the ejahar lodged by one Puja Bharadwaj, Manager, Canara Bank, Ulubari is with regard to fraudulent transaction in Bank accounts of customer and through another suspicious account at the behest of accused persons Jumi Das, her husband Ranjeeb Hazarika. The present petitioner is named as accused no.4 in the FIR and there is an allegation against all the named accused persons of indulging in fraudulent transactions. The present petitioner is stated to be an employee of M/s Maa Bagala Enterprise. He was earlier granted interim bail vide order dated 29.07.2025.

¶20

4. The case diary has been received and placed before this Court. I have seen the progress of investigation.

¶21

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has also confirmed about the appearance of the present petitioner and recording of the statement.

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

6. I have perused the statement of the accused petitioner available in the case diary. The contention of the petitioner side is that he was merely an employee of the said enterprise under his employer Jumi Das and her husband Ranjeeb Hazarika and it is submitted that he has no complicity in the alleged fraudulent transactions. Interestingly, the FIR was lodged in 2016 itself, but investigation is still in progress.

¶24

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that investigation materials also indicate that the present petitioner was acting on behalf of the said firm owned by co-accused Ranjeeb.

¶25

8. In the given facts and circumstances – considering the elapse of time since the registration of the FIR, the co-operation rendered by the petitioner in the investigation pursuant to the grant of interim bail and the limited nature of the adverse materials revealed against him, as submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State – I deem it fit to make absolute the interim bail.

¶26

9. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.07.2025 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions :

¶27