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

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S G BARUAH, MR. B BORGOHAIN,MR B SAIKIA,MR. S NEOG Advocate for the Respondent : SPL. PP, C.B.I., SPL. PP, C.B.I.,SPL. PP, C.B.I. HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND BEFORE ORDER

22.11.2024 Heard learned counsel, Ms S G Baruah for the petitioner, Baharul Islam Laskar, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 05.09.2024, in connection with Silchar PS Case No. 789/2024, Page No.# 2/4 under Sections 406/420 of the IPC, read with Sections 21/22/23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI, Mr M Haloi, for the respondent.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Annexure-3 of the petition, which is an appointment letter, clearly reflects that the petitioner shall be in close aid and shall take help of the Panchayat Committee. Thus, the petitioner was not at all aware that Singhania Fintech Agribusiness Consortium Limited was a shell company. He was under the impression that the Company was a genuine company. From time to time, the Company made recruitments and there are several others involved in this case, but this Court has granted bail to the other co-accused.

The FIR unfolds that the informant was duped by Simi Saha into investing Rs. 2000/-, to procure a loan of Rs. 25,000/- in the aforementioned company. The complainant as well as other innocent customers were duped into investing in the Company in a similar manner and later, it came to light that the aforementioned company is a shell company.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that the petitioner was actively involved in duping the innocent customers to invest in the Company by promising to provide them loans. This is an economic offence and the petitioner is not entitled to bail. There are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner.

5.1. It is submitted that if the petitioner is admitted to bail, investigation may be adversely affected. Economic offence is a class apart from other offences, as there is every possibility of interpolation of records and influencing the witnesses. Page No.# 3/4

I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

I have also scrutinized the Case Diary.

Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner.

Statements of several innocent customers have already been recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Investigation has progressed substantially.

It appears that further custodial detention may not be required for further progress of investigation.

Bail Application stands disposed of.

Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant