Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2632/2026 of MANASH JYOTI CHABUKDHARA ALIAS MANAS JYOTI CHABUKDHARA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 14 September 2026
GAHC010194562026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2632/2026 MANASH JYOTI CHABUKDHARA ALIAS MANAS JYOTI CHABUKDHARA SON OF SRI RAJIB CHABUKDHARA, R/O CHENGMARI JORONI, GOHPUR, KALABARI, P.S. GOHPUR, DISTRICT
GAHC010194562026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2632/2026
MANASH JYOTI CHABUKDHARA ALIAS MANAS JYOTI CHABUKDHARA
SON OF SRI RAJIB CHABUKDHARA, R/O CHENGMARI JORONI, GOHPUR, KALABARI, P.S. GOHPUR, DISTRICT SONITPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H K DAS, MR N K SARMA,MR B DEKA,MR. D SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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
15.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the accused petitioner, namely, Manash Jyoti Chabukdhara @ Manas Jyoti Chabukdhara, in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 517/2026 (Corresponding G.R
No.
1176/2026)
under
Sections 316(2)/318(4)/319(2)/336(3)/337/340(2)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D/72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, shown arrested on 21.08.2026.
3. Upon perusal of the FIR of the present case, the petitioner came to know that the informant, namely, Inspector Satish Sahoo, lodged an FIR dated 18.08.2026 before the Officer-in-Charge of Tezpur Police Station, inter alia alleging that, during the course of investigation of Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026, certain facts emerged regarding the alleged fraudulent generation and manipulation of electronic attendance of students enrolled under various Skill Development/PM Vikas Yojana projects. It was alleged that a loophole in the Aadhaar-Based Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) application was exploited for generating attendance without the actual physical presence of students at the training centers. It was further alleged that the present petitioner, being a Project Manager of NRDS Management Private Limited, was connected with certain other persons in relation to the alleged technical discussions and fraudulent generation of electronic attendance. On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Tezpur Police Station registered as Tezpur P.S Case No. 517/2026 (Corresponding G.R No. 1176/2026) under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/319(2)/336(3)/337/340(2)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D/72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier another FIR was lodged against the petitioner, subsequently leveling the same allegations, and in the said case, considering the fact that the petitioner had been thoroughly interrogated during police remand and considering that he had remained in detention for a period of 3 (three) days, and the petitioner was granted bail by order dated 03.09.2026. It is also submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was shown arrested on 21.08.2026 and till now has spent about 25 days in custody. Therefore, despite the grant of bail by the order dated 03.09.2026 in the previous case, the petitioner continues languishing in jail and has now spent about one and half months behind bars.
5. It appears that in the present case also, the petitioner was shown arrested on the same allegations.
6. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner has been thoroughly interrogated, further detention of the petitioner is not considered necessary.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the aforementioned case.
8. It is further provided that the petitioner shall continue to cooperate with the remaining investigation and shall not try to hamper or tamper with the evidence, in any manner.
9. The bail petition stands allowed as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant