[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Pulakesh Deka vs The State Of Assam on 26 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010025102026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/291/2026
PULAKESH DEKA
S/O MOHESWAR DEKA, R/O ALAGJHARI 1 NO. GOSAI CHAPORI,
P.S.MONGALDOI, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI, MR B DEORI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A N I HUSSAIN,MR. R DUBEY,MS. A B
KAYASTHA,MS N B KAYASTHA
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 26.02.2026.
Heard Mr. B.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S.
Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent
and Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the informant.
This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-
Page No.# 2/5
arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Sri Pulakesh Deka who is
apprehending arrest in connection with the Palashbari P.S. Case No. 297/2025,
registered under Sections 61(2)/338/340(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023.
The case diary is received and perused the same.
It is submitted by Mr. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
present accused petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such
offence as alleged in the FIR. However, he admitted that there were some fault
on his part at the time of verification as there were some defects in the
verification, as the verification was not duly done at the time of opening the
account in the name of the company. However, from the FIR itself it is seen that
the bank account was opened on the basis of the credentials of the informant,
which were produced before the Bank authority and he being a subordinate
staff to the bank officer, had also complied with the order of the Bank Manager
at the time of opening of the account. He further submitted that the account
was opened on 22.10.2024 and thereafter he got his transfer order in the
month of December, 2024 and he was never present in any kind of transactions
what had happened in the said bank account. However, he is still ready and
willing to extend his cooperation with the further investigation of the case, if he
is granted with some interim protection.
Mr. Lahkar, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam submitted in this regard that opening
of the account itself is illegal wherein without any proper verification of the
person concerned, the account was opened wherein the other bank officials
were also involved in opening an account in a fictitious name. He further
submitted that the petitioner is the person who had identified the proprietor of
Page No.# 3/5
the company i.e. the informant without even visiting to his place of residence
and without proper verification of signature of the informant. Accordingly, Mr.
Lahkar raised objection and submitted that the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner may be necessary for the interest of investigation.
Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel for the informant submitted in this regard that
the account was on 24.10.2024, by the prime accused one Sanjay Sarkar with
every knowledge that there will be an order for refund of the tax amount and in
that view only, the account was opened prior to the order passed by this Court
and passed in the contempt proceeding. He further submitted that in
connivance with the bank officials including the present petitioner, the account
was opened in the name of the proprietor of the company without doing any
verification and even without visiting the place of residence of the informant. He
further submitted that the informant resides outside Assam and from the
conduct of the petitioner itself, it is seen that he never visited to the house for
verification of signature and other credentials, on the basis of which the account
was opened in the name of the proprietor of the company. In view of this, Mr.
Dubey, the learned counsel for the informant also raised objection and
submitted that it is not a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to
the petitioner, whose custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of
investigation.
After hearing the submissions made by learned counsels for both sides, I have
also perused the case diary.
On perusal of the case diary it is seen that earlier the present accused petitioner
was asked to appear in the police station and accordingly, he appeared before
Page No.# 4/5
the police, his statement was recorded and thereafter, he was released from the
police station with a direction to appear on 08.02.2026. However, from the case
diary it reveals that during the investigation of the case, it has come to light that
the present petitioner is also involved in opening the bank account by using
credentials of the informant and forging his signatures. But there are no such
materials in the case diary as to whether the present petitioner was involved in
forging his signature, though it was an admitted fact that on the basis of the
credentials of the informant, an account was opened in the name of proprietor
of the company. Further from the materials available in the case diary, it is also
seen that some other bank officials including the Branch Manager may also
involved in opening the said bank account, wherein the present petitioner was
working as a source person.
So considering all aspects of the matter including the materials available in the
case diary and also considering the earlier statement of the present petitioner
recorded in the police station, this Court is of the opinion that interim protection
may be provided to the present petitioner so that he can appear and cooperate
in the investigation of this case and can disclose the other relevant matters vis-
à-vis the other relevant documents, which may be necessary for the purpose of
investigation, till disposal of the present pre-arrest bail petition.
Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioner,
namely, Sri Pulakesh Deka in connection with the Palashbari P.S. Case No.
297/2025, registered under Sections 61(2)/338/340(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023,
he shall be enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail on executing a bond of Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only, with one surety of like amount, to the
satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:-
Page No.# 5/5
(i) that the petitioner will make himself available for interrogation by
the Investigating Officer within 7 (seven) days;
(ii) that the petitioner will fully co-operate with the investigation of
this case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid
case; and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
List the matter on 24.03.2026 for the updated case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
