Allowed

Mr Rajendra Kumar Agarwal v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026AB/1167/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 BNSS regarding a commercial dispute over unpaid solar panel installation, the court held that interim bail need not be cancelled as investigation is complete and co-operation rendered. The interim bail was made absolute subject to specific conditions including future cooperation and appearance for trial.

What did the court decide?

The interim anticipatory bail granted earlier is made absolute subject to conditions of co-operating with investigation, availability for trial, and not tampering with evidence.

Mr Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010110012026

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶5

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

¶6

Case No. : AB/1167/2026

¶7

MR RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL

¶8

SON OF LATE PRAKAS CHAND AGARWAL, RESIDING AT G.C. COLLEGE ROAD, P. AMBICAPATTY, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR ASSAM - 788004.

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MR B YADAV,MS M DAS,MR A K RAI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

¶13

ORDER

¶14

15.09.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶16

This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, namely, Rajendra Kumar Agarwal , apprehending arrest in connection with Golaghat P.S. Case No. 190/2025 registered u/s 61(2)/314/316(2)/318(4) of BNS.

¶17

The case relates to an FIR which was lodged on 07.10.2025 by one Jallan Golaghat Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., alleging that inspite of payment of Rs.73,97,000/(Rupees Seventy Three Lacs and Ninety Seven Thousand) to the partnership firm

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

owned by the accused/applicant for installation of certain solar panels in the tea garden of the informant; however, the same was not carried out by the accused/applicant.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant submits that though the Buildwell Solutions India is owned by the accused/applicant, the name of Buildwell Solutions India has been utilized by one person, namely, Niket More, who is specialized in solar panels and because of his expertise, the accused/applicant had entered into an agreement with the aforesaid Niket More on 10.06.2026 whereby it has been specifically provided that all day-to-day affairs as well as accounts and management of Buildwell Solutions India shall be carried out by the aforesaid Niket More as he being a specialized person having expertise in solar works. He submits that no money has in fact been taken by the accused/applicant in the instant case and he submits that he will fully cooperate with the investigation.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-ordinate Bench was pleased to grant interim bail on 8/6/2026 with conditions and it is submitted that the petitioner has complied with the conditions and he has rendered his cooperation and his statement has also been recorded.

¶22

The case diary was called for, however, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Goswami submits that in the meantime, investigation stood completed and has resulted in a charge sheet vide CS No. 112/26 dated 30.06.2026.

¶23

In view of the completion of investigation and the contention about complying with the bail conditions and rendering cooperation to the investigation, I do not deem it necessary to cancel the interim bail. Accordingly, the interim bail passed earlier on 08.06.2026 is hereby made absolute subject to the condition

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

that the petitioner;

¶26

(a) shall co-operate with the remaining investigation;

¶27

(b) shall be available for trial, if one commences;

¶28

¶29

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Mr Rajendra Kumar Agarwal v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rajendra Kumar Agarwal v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases