THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED, J BORAH,T UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

18.08.2025 ORDER Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State.

This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 filed by the petitioner, viz., Jitumoni Kalita, praying for releasing him on bail in connection Page No.# 2/5 with Khetri Police Station Case No.56/2025 registered under Sections 316(2)/318(4) of the BNS read with Sections 21(1)/21(2)/21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

The F.I.R. dated 22.06.2025 lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Khetri Police Station reveals that on a preliminary enquiry it was found that a society by the name of Unnati Trading Cooperative Society Limited registered under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 has been operating in the Khetri area and it is found that the said society is regularly collecting huge funds deposits from the public in violation of the provisions under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act,

2007. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that under Sections 63 and 72 of the Act, a society can collect funds only from the members of the society for their benefit but the chairperson of the society i.e. the petitioner is allegedly stated to have violated the said provisions and had collected huge amount of money from the public by offering an unregulated deposit scheme as defined under Section 2(17) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. It is as such stated that there is a clear violation of Section 3 of the said Act by the petitioner.

Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the petitioner is not involved in collecting money from the public. He was the institutional head and that the bye-laws of the Unnati Trading Cooperative Society Limited provides that it was the Secretary of the said Society who is given the task to carry on the activities of the society. To substantiate his arguments, he has placed the bye-laws of the said society in which bye-law Page No.# 3/5 No.5 provides that the society will arrange fund by collecting admission fees, by collecting share money from members, by collecting donations, by securing loan from the Government or other institutions. He has also placed bye-law No.14 by which more specifically by clause (v) it is provided that the Secretary will be the person to carry on the activity of the society according to the decision of the Board of Directors. He, as such, submits that the petitioner has no connection with collection and utilization of the money and as such, he prays that he may be granted bail. He also submits that the petitioner has been in incarceration for 56 days as of today and that the investigation has also completed and has prayed for releasing the petitioner on bail on this count.

Ms. N. Das, learned Addl. P.P. submits, on perusal of the Case Diary, that the involvement of the petitioner is stated by the co-accused and other witnesses. The learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the statement of the victim who had stated that money has been collected from the public which is not a small amount but a huge amount and that the present case is an economic offence and as such no bail may be granted to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the Case Diary.

It is noticed that the petitioner was arrested on 23.06.2025 and till date he is behind the bar. The statement of the victim in the present case shows that the agents have collected the money from the public and that the President and petitioner as well as the Secretary of the committee through the members and Page No.# 4/5 customers had collected money from the public. In the statement of the co- accused, which although is a weak piece of evidence, it is reflected that the petitioner collects the money from the agents and that the co-accused has further stated that he does not know what is done with that money. He, of course, has further stated that it is the President or the two others who collects the money from the agents in the evening. However, the said witnesses have not stated that the petitioner has extracted the money to his own benefit and that there are other members, customers as well as the Secretary who are involved in the alleged offence. The Case Diary further reflects that the statement of the witnesses and the accused persons were recorded and the documents were also seized.

Since the investigation has reached to quite an extent and the relevant documents were also seized and the statements recorded, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) under the following conditions :- 1) That the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation to the fullest extent. 2) That he will not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses connected with the instant case. 3) That he will not leave the jurisdiction of the arresting authority Page No.# 5/5 without the permission of the said authority.