Gauhati High Court
AB/1167/2026 of MR RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 14 September 2026
GAHC010110012026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1167/2026 MR RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL SON OF LATE PRAKAS CHAND AGARWAL, RESIDING AT G.C. COLLEGE ROAD, P. AMBICAPATTY, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR ASSAM - 788004. VERSUS
GAHC010110012026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1167/2026
MR RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL
SON OF LATE PRAKAS CHAND AGARWAL, RESIDING AT G.C. COLLEGE
ROAD, P. AMBICAPATTY, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR ASSAM - 788004.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MR B YADAV,MS M DAS,MR A K RAI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
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
1. Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, namely, Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, apprehending arrest in connection with Golaghat P.S. Case No. 190/2025 registered u/s 61(2)/314/316(2)/318(4) of BNS.
3. The case relates to an FIR which was lodged on 07.10.2025 by one Jallan Golaghat Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., alleging that inspite of payment of Rs.73,97,000/- (Rupees Seventy Three Lacs and Ninety Seven Thousand) to the partnership firm owned by the accused/applicant for installation of certain solar panels in the tea garden of the informant; however, the same was not carried out by the accused/applicant.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant submits that though the Buildwell Solutions India is owned by the accused/applicant, the name of Buildwell Solutions India has been utilized by one person, namely, Niket More, who is specialized in solar panels and because of his expertise, the accused/applicant had entered into an agreement with the aforesaid Niket More on 10.06.2026 whereby it has been specifically provided that all day-to-day affairs as well as accounts and management of Buildwell Solutions India shall be carried out by the aforesaid Niket More as he being a specialized person having expertise in solar works. He submits that no money has in fact been taken by the accused/applicant in the instant case and he submits that he will fully cooperate with the investigation.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-ordinate Bench was pleased to grant interim bail on 8/6/2026 with conditions and it is submitted that the petitioner has complied with the conditions and he has rendered his cooperation and his statement has also been recorded.
6. The case diary was called for, however, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Goswami submits that in the meantime, investigation stood completed and has resulted in a charge sheet vide CS No. 112/26 dated 30.06.2026.
7. In view of the completion of investigation and the contention about complying with the bail conditions and rendering cooperation to the investigation, I do not deem it necessary to cancel the interim bail. Accordingly, the interim bail passed earlier on 08.06.2026 is hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner;
(a) shall co-operate with the remaining investigation; (b) shall be available for trial, if one commences;
(c) shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence of the case.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant