- Court
- High Court of Gauhati
- Decided
- 17 December 2024
- Bench
- Parthivjyoti Saikia
- Case no.
- AB 3079/2024
Judgment
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010245462024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3079/2024 RAHUL ROY S/O SRIBASH ROY R/O HOUSE NO. 2, ADHAR PATH, BASISTHA NAGAR NEAR BUDSKINDERGARTEN, BASISTHA, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781028 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. FIRUZ KHAN, RHITUSHREE TALUKDAR,MR. ABHIJIT MENA,MR. T K DAS,MR U CHAUDHURY,MR U CHAUDHURY,DR AZIZ KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR H BETALA (FOR INFORMANT)
:: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R
18.12.2024 Heard Mr. F. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam along with Mr. H. Betala, Page No.# 2/3 the learned counsel representing the informant.
¶2This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for pre-arrest bail in respect of Basistha P.S. Case No.632/2024.
¶3The informant Mr. Anil Kumar Kharkia is the owner of North-East Roadways & Global India Logistics. Four persons namely, Mr. Sibu Mandal, Mr. Subham Mandal, Mr. Bipin Kumar and the present petitioner are his employees. The petitioner and Subham Mandal were appointed on the basis of recommendations of Sibu Mandal. The duty of the present petitioner was that he had to disburse money to different business associates by way of Bank transfer.
¶4The informant has alleged that on 16.08.2024, he had examined the account books and then it came to light that since the year 2021, the present petitioner had disbursed ₹1,56,000,00/- to different persons not entitled to receive any money from the informant.
¶5The informant has further alleged that all the aforementioned four employees hatched a conspiracy to embezzle his money and executed the said operation.
¶6In his application, the present petitioner has stated that he did all those transactions on the advice of Bipin Kumar, though he had the knowledge that he was doing illegal acts.
¶7Mr. Khan has submitted two points. The first point is that the FIR is dated
05.09.2024. Therefore, the case should have been registered under the penal provisions of BNS, 2023.
¶8The second point is that though the petitioner has admitted he had done those transactions, he has come with a clean hand.
¶9Mr. Betala has submitted that the offences were committed prior to 01.07.2024. To that effect, Mr. Betala has relied upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court that was rendered in Vijay Sarma & Anr., vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Misc. (pet.) Page No.# 3/3 No.5522/2024]. In this judgment it has been held that when the offences were committed, the Indian Penal Code was valid. The court further held that though the FIR was lodged after 01.07.2024, if the offences were committed prior to that date, Indian Penal Code will be applicable in those cases.
¶10Mr. Betala has further pointed out that since the petitioner has admitted that the transactions which he had done were illegal, he was doing that with a criminal intention. According to Mr. Betala, in such a circumstance, the petitioner is not entitled to have the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.
¶11I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
¶12The offences in this case were committed prior to 01.07.2024. Therefore, the police rightly registered the case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
¶13This Court is of the opinion that this case requires custodial interrogation. This is not a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail. The petitioner has admitted in his application that he had the knowledge that he was doing illegal acts. By the acts of the petitioner, the informant has lost a huge amount of money. When an accused admits his guilt, he is not entitled to seek any protection of law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present anticipatory bail application is devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. The case diary shall be returned.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.