Dismissed¶31

Dipen Sarma v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC9 Mar 2026Bail Appln./475/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, Bail Appln./475/2026 (neutral citation 2026:GAU-AS:3523), decided 10.03.2026 by Mitali Thakuria, J. Bail rejected under S. 483 BNSS in case under Ss. 316(2)/318(4)/305(b) BNS 2023 (cheating/criminal breach of trust alleged); vehicle-on-rent fraud, vehicles sold outside Assam/Pasighat (Arunachal Pradesh), Noonmati P.S. Case No. 21/2026, habitual offender, further custodial interrogation required despite recovery/seizure of both FIR vehicles and 38 days custody; petitioner Dipen Sarma; State of Assam represented by Addl. P.P. K.K. Das.

What did the court decide?

From the seizure of the vehicles and the case diary, the Court found that the modus operandi of the petitioner is to take vehicles on rent and thereafter sell them outside the State of Assam. ¶29

Dipen Sarma Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/petitioner Dipen Sarma, arrested in Noonmati P.S. Case No. 21/2026 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/305(b) of the BNS, 2023, should be granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

¶17

Court's answer

From the seizure of the vehicles and the case diary, the Court found that the modus operandi of the petitioner is to take vehicles on rent and thereafter sell them outside the State of Assam.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Although the two FIR vehicles were recovered during investigation, some more persons may be involved and further custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth more facts of the case.

¶30

Key takeaways

Considering the nature and gravity of the offence vis-à-vis the modus operandi, it is not a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage; the bail petition stands rejected.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS — offence under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/305(b) of the BNS, 2023 (Noonmati P.S. Case No. 21/2026) — allegation that vehicles taken on rent under an agreement were further rented/sold outside Assam, including in the Pasighat area of Arunachal Pradesh — both FIR vehicles recovered and seized during nine days of police remand with the petitioner's help and given in the zimma of the informant — petitioner in custody 38 days — State contended similar offences against multiple victims, sale of vehicles outside the State, deception at inception establishing cheating and criminal breach of trust, and need for further custodial interrogation of a habitual offender — Court held the petitioner's modus operandi is to take vehicles on rent and sell them outside Assam, and that further custodial interrogation may be necessary as some more persons may be involved — considering nature and gravity of the offence vis-à-vis the modus operandi, held not a fit case for bail at this stage — bail petition rejected.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010031912026

2026:GAU-AS:3523

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./475/2026

¶6

DIPEN SARMA SON OF HARI CHANDRA SARMA

¶7

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF QTR NO. 14/7, SUPER MARKET, DISPUR, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN-781005.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. A MAHANTA,R K SHARMA,MS. U HAZARIKA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Date : 10.03.2026.

¶16

Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent.

¶17

This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Dipen Sarma, who has been arrested on

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

05.02.2026, in connection with the Noonmati P.S. Case No. 21/2026, under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/ 305(b) of the BNS, 2023.

¶20

The case diary has already been received and perused the same.

¶21

It is submitted by Ms. Som, the learned counsel that the present accused petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. However, it is a fact that the present accused petitioner entered into an agreement with the victim and took two vehicles on rent but thereafter, the vehicles were further rented to in Pasighat area of Arunachal Pradesh by one of his family member. But during the investigation, he helped the police in recovering those vehicles and both the vehicle which were mentioned in the FIR have already been recovered, seized by police and given in the zimma of the informant. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused petitioner was in police remand, initially for five days and again it was extended for another four days and after nine days of police remand, the accused petitioner was sent for judicial custody and during the period of his nine days police custody, he cooperated with the I.O. in investigation of this case and that is how, two vehicles were also recovered from Pasighat area of Arunachal Pradesh. At present, the accused petitioner is in the custody for 38 days and hence, he may be released on bail considering his length of detention. She further submitted that, after the police remand, the accused petitioner was never interrogated in the jail premises for further investigation of this case. However, accused petitioner is still ready and will to extend his cooperation in further investigation of this case, if he is granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

¶22

Mr. Das, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam raised objection and submitted in

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

this regard that though as per the FIR it is seen that the vehicles were taken on rent by the present petitioner, but from the materials available in the case diary, it is seen that not only the present victim, but there are many more victims wherein the petitioner had committed similar kind of offence and his modus operandi is also some. In some of the cases, he even sold some vehicles outside the State in the name of taking the vehicle on rent. The case is still under investigation and the petitioner being a habitual offender, his further custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of investigation. Mr. Das further submitted that from the materials available in the case diary, it is seen that the intention of deception is at the beginning, while entering into the agreement and thus it establishes a case of cheating and the criminal breach of trust.

¶25

Ms. Som, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged for two vehicles, which have already been recovered and if some other vehicles are also involved, the FIRs might have lodged already in other police stations. But the present two vehicles are already been recovered by police during the investigation and hence, further custodial interrogation of the present accused petitioner may not be necessary for the interest of investigation.

¶26

Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case diary along with the annexure filed with the present bail petition.

¶27

From the submissions as well as from the seizure of the vehicle, etc., it is seen that the two vehicles which has been mentioned in the FIR has already been seized by the police, with the help of the present petitioner during his

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

police remand. But it is seen that the modus operandi of the present petitioner is to take the vehicle on rent and thereafter, he used to sold out the vehicles outside the State of Assam.

¶30

The vehicles which were involved in the present FIR have already been recovered during the investigation of the present case but considering the submissions made by the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, it is seen that some more persons may be involved in the present case and to unearth some more facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation may be necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶31

In view of this and considering the nature and gravity of the offence vis-àvis the modus operandi of committing the same offence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused petitioner at this stage and the bail petition stands rejected.

¶32

The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Dipen Sarma v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipen Sarma v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashadur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Sahida Khatun Vs the State of Assam

Asad Uddin Alias Asar Uddin Alias Sofi Vs the State of Assam

Utpal Dey Vs Sutapa Dey and Anr.

Sachin Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Mrinal Das Alias Mrinal Ch Das Vs the State of Assam