Amit Kumar Rai Vs State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2026)

Amit Kumar Rai Vs State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to the accused-petitioner on a bond of Rs.30,000/- with one suitable surety of like amount, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate with the process of law; bail application allowed and disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the subsequent bail application of the accused-petitioner Amit Kumar Rai under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No.345/2026 should be allowed, in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the informant.

Court's answer

In view of the subsequent developments (settlement between petitioner and informant, part payment made, and the informant's no-objection), the subsequent bail petition can be allowed at this stage itself by granting bail to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The accused-petitioner is to be released on bail of Rs.30,000/- with one suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned concerned court, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate with the process of law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Pranjal Das, J.) allowed a successive bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 filed by Amit Kumar Rai, accused in Dispur P.S. Case No.345/2026 registered under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/61(2) of the BNS Act on an ejahar by OM Innovative LLP alleging that the petitioner, an employee of FFTC Projects Pvt. Ltd., abused his position to induce co-conspirator businesses to raise inflated, false and fabricated bills, with the excess amount allegedly routed to the bank account of the petitioner's wife, Kanchan Kumari (about Rs.23,82,107/- deposited, of which Rs.8,67,395/- withdrawn). An earlier bail petition (BA 1688/2026) had been rejected on 02.07.2026. On the subsequent development of a settlement between the petitioner and the informant — part payment made, balance undertaken to be paid, and the informant's affidavit of no objection — the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs.30,000/- with one suitable surety of like amount, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate with the process of law; the application was allowed and disposed of.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010140402026

undefined

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

Case No. : Bail Appln./1945/2026

AMIT KUMAR RAI

S/O ASHOK KUMAR RAI, TEMPORARY R/O H NO 1, NARIKALBARI, SUB BYLANE, PO AND PS GEETANAGAR, DIST KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PERMANENT RO DHIRAJ NAGAR, DIST HARIYANA

VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR. SHYAM SHARMA,MR. S K GOSWAMI,MR P SONOWAL,S YESMIN,MR K THAKUR

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. C MAHANTA (FOR INFORMANT),MR. N BARMAN (FOR INFORMANT)

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

ORDER

17.07.2026

Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Amit Kumar Rai, praying for grant of bail in

Page No.# 2/3

connection with Dispur P.S. Case No.345/2026 under Sections 316(2)/318(4) /336(3) /61(2) of the BNS Act.

An earlier bail petition on behalf of the petitioner and co-accused was rejected on 02.07.2026 in BA 1688/2026.

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.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, the petitioner and the informant have arrived at a settlement whereby he had given a part of the money and undertakes to pay the remaining amount.

Mr. N. Barman, learned counsel for the informant also appears and supporting the affidavit, submits that the informant has no objection to granting bail in terms of the settlement. He submits that the petitioner has undertaken to pay the remaining amount pursuant to the settlement.

Page No.# 3/3

I have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

In the context of subsequent developments narrated and discussed above, I am of the view that this subsequent bail petition can be allowed at this stage itself by granting bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail of Rs.30,000/- with one suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court subject to the following conditions that the petitioner:

(a) shall co-operate with the process of law.

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of .

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant