Gauhati High Court
Pranjyoti Borah vs The State Of Assam on 21 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010208472022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2986/2022
PRANJYOTI BORAH
SON OF SRI MOHENDRA NATH BORA
R/O KOLAKHOWA GAON,
P.O. KOLAKHOWA, P.S. BHOGDHOI
DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS S PRASAD
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND 21.11.2022 Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. S. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner, namely, Pranjyoti Borah, has filed this application under Section 438 Page No.# 2/2 Cr.P.C. with prayer for pre-arrest bail in connection with Tengakhat Police Station Case No. 40/2022, under Section 420/34 IPC.
A complainant petition was lodged against the petitioner with an allegation that he had induced the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- to procure coffee cup machinery. On 05.02.2022, Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cheque of SBI by the complainant. An another SBI cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid on 19.02.2022 into the account of petitioner's brother. Both the cheques were deposited into the petitioner's brother account by the complainant.
It is alleged that after the aforesaid cheques were deposited, the petitioner did not provide the machinery as promised and when the complainant went to meet the petitioner, he learnt that the petitioner's office did not exist, and thereafter from various news channels he learnt that petitioner's firm/associates has been indulging in fraudulent activities and at present the firm not existent.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the accused no. 3, Jyoti Pobon Bora is not the brother of the petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P. has raised serious objections stating that there are cogent materials against the petitioner. The cheques were deposited into the account of accused no. 3, Jyoti Pobon Bora.
I have perused the case diary.
There are cogent materials against the petitioner.
I have considered the allegations against the petitioner and the role played by the petitioner. I have considered the submissions at the Bar. It appears that the investigation may be adversely affected and the liberty may be misused if bail is granted. There is no prima facie case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage.
Send back the case diary.
Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant