Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2499/2026 of SRI KESHAV DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 17 September 2026
GAHC010180302026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2499/2026 SRI KESHAV DUBEY SON OF LATE SANTOSH DUBEY, RESIDENT OF 1912/1 PREM NAGAR, ISAI MOHALLA, TULSI GOVIND KUTI, JABALPUR, WARD NO. 11, GIRIRAJ KISHORE
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.
GAHC010180302026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2499/2026 SRI KESHAV DUBEY SON OF LATE SANTOSH DUBEY, RESIDENT OF 1912/1 PREM NAGAR, ISAI MOHALLA, TULSI GOVIND KUTI, JABALPUR, WARD NO. 11, GIRIRAJ KISHORE KAPOOR, JABALPUR, P.S. GADHA, DISTRICT JABALPUR, PIN 482001, MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Advocates: For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. K.K. Das, Addl. P.P, Assam Date on which judgment is reserved: 15.09.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 18.09.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment :
Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes
Judgment & order(CAV)
Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the petitioner namely Sri Keshav Dubey, in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026 (Corresponding to G.R. Case No.1041/2026) under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/338/340(2)/61(2) of BNS R/W Section 66(c)/66(D)/72(a) of I.T. Act.
3. The allegation made in the FIR is that one Nazmul Ansari on 27.07.2026 lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Tezpur Police Station suspecting misuse of his biometric, fingerprint and iris scan by one Mr. Jewel Ahmed. The informant enrolled himself in a Skill India Related program of the Government of India. For the purpose of enrolment, the said Mr. Jewel Ahmed took his documents, biometric details, finger print and iris scans. Initially, the informant was told that the biometric details would be required for the purpose of registration and Aadhar/KYC verification and after completion of verification the informant would be imparting training followed by payment of stipend.
4. However, the informant became skeptical from the factum of storing of his biometric details and use of the same for the purpose of attendance. Hence, fearing misuse of his biometric details, he lodged the FIR dated 27.07.2026. Accordingly, the police registered the Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026 (Corresponding to G.R. Case No.1041/2026) under Sections
316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/338/340(2)/61(2) of BNS R/W Section 66(c)/66(D)/72(a) of I.T. Act.
5. Learned council for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only a contractual worker under another co-accused Ravishankar Mishra, and he worked only for a few days.
6. Learned Additional PP submits that the petitioner facilitated the commission of the offence by providing technical knowledge assistance for collection of IRIS data.
7. It is also stated in the bail objection that as per statement of co-accused, the present petitioner used to send random biometric data and prepare PDFs containing Iris scan images which were used for making fraudulent attendance through a modified Iris scanning device. The procedure was explained by the said Sonu Yadav to the petitioner in exchange for Rs. 20,000/- and bank records disclosed a financial trade between the petitioner and other co-accused persons.
8. From the above, it appears that the I.O has already collected the evidence and further evidence is required to be collected to complete the financial trail, digital communications, records, devices, biometric data and correlation of the statements of other accused persons from states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha etc. comma as stated in the said objection. Therefore, the investigation is likely to take a long period of time and although some incriminating material appears to have surfaced against the petitioner, mainly from the statements of co-accused persons, the petitioner cannot be kept in detention indefinitely till completion of the investigation having regard to the role attributed to him in the commission of the alleged offence.
9. Furthermore, it appears that the petitioner was thoroughly interrogated while in police custody and moreover, he has spent about 40 days in custody and the investigation of the case, as would appear from the CD, would take a long time for completion. Having regard to the aforesaid, the prayer for bail is allowed.
10. Accordingly, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned jurisdictional Magistrate/Court subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the IO as and when required or summoned.
11. Bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant