Gauhati High Court
AB/1775/2026 of SATYAJIT BORAH AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 28 September 2026
GAHC010161752026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1775/2026 SATYAJIT BORAH AND ANR S/O- LAKHI NATH BORAH,R/O-WARD NO. 04,C.D ROAD,NEAR BHARAT PETROL PUMP, NORTH LAKHIMPUR,P.O AND P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR,ASSAM-787001 2:
GAHC010161752026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1775/2026
SATYAJIT BORAH AND ANR
S/O- LAKHI NATH BORAH,R/O-WARD NO. 04,C.D ROAD,NEAR BHARAT
PETROL PUMP, NORTH LAKHIMPUR,P.O AND P.S- NORTH
LAKHIMPUR,ASSAM-787001
2: GIRISH BORAH
S/O- LAKHI NATH BORAH
R/O- BAMGAON
SILAPATHAR
P.O AND P.S-SILAPATHAR
DIST- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 78705
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MS S JAIN,MR P DOLEY,MR J
SINGH,MR H AGARWAL
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
29.09.2026 Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Doley, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 168/2026, under Sections 61(2)/308(2)/308(7)/318(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, this application under Section 482, BNSS is preferred by two applicants, namely, Satyajit Borah and Girish Borah, for grant of pre-arrest bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Pankaj Sharma on 18.07.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 18.07.2026, is that the informant was deceived by Satyajit Bora, Girish Bora, broker Nijam Hussain and his associates through a well planned conspiracy and they had dishonestly induced him to part with his money on the false promise of arranging finance for his tea factory, and also compelled him to transfer substantial amount to various bank accounts under different false pretexts.
4. Mr. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail by this Court, vide order, dated 04.08.2026, and pursuant to the said order, the applicants had appeared before the I.O. and their statements were also recorded. He also submits that the applicants have been extending cooperation with the investigating agency and under such circumstances, he has contended to make the interim order, dated 04.08.2026, absolute, in the same terms and conditions.
5. Per contra, Mr. Barthakur, learned APP, has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the I.O. has collected some materials in support of the allegations made in the FIR against the applicant No. 1. However, Mr. Barthakur submits that both the applicants had appeared before the I.O. and they have been cooperating with the investigating agency and as such, he has contended to pass necessary order.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the case diary produced before this Court by Mr. Barthakur, learned APP.
7. It appears that the applicants have been cooperating with the investigating agency and pursuant to the order, dated 04.08.2026, they have appeared before the I.O. and their statements have also been recorded.
8. And in view of the cooperation, being extended by the applicants to the investigating agency in the investigation of the case, and also in view of the materials collected so far in the case diary, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicants seems to be unwarranted in the interest of the investigation of this case.
9. And accordingly, this Court is inclined to make the interim order dated
04.08.2026, absolute, in the same terms and conditions.
10. In terms of the above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
11. Case diary be returned.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant