Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 409 (GAU)

Narayan Chandra Dey v. State Of Assam

2020-03-18

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. By this application u/s 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Narayan Chandra Dey has prayed for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 1889/2019 under Sections 120(B)/420/406/468 IPC. 2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, case dairy was called for and the petitioner was granted interim pre-arrest bail by order dated 20.12.2019, which is received today and the matter has come up for final hearing. In the meantime, the informant/respondent has also filed an application for cancellation of the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner, which has been registered as I.A. (Crl.) 46 of 2020. Since the matter is taken up for final disposal, the interlocutory application has become redundant or shall be subject to the result of the main bail application. 3. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the informant/respondent. 4. Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the informant, M/S D.S. Realtors to provide his land for construction of flats. However, the informant/builder fraudulently mutated his name in respect of the land of the petitioner on the strength of a forged sale deed and accordingly, the petitioner lodged an FIR on 28-05-2018 against the informant and also instituted a civil suit. Mr. Biswas further submits that as a counter-blast to the case filed by the petitioner, the present FIR has been lodged by the informant making some concocted story that the sale deed of the petitioner was not genuine. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant enquired at the Sub-Registrar office, who could not provide the certified copy of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and there was also interpolation in the sale deed of the petitioner, which reflected foul play on the part of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel contends that the petitioner purchased the land from one Harendra Kumar by a valid sale deed and he has also produced the original sale deed for inspection of the court, a copy of which was annexed with the petition. 6. The case diary produced today reflects that police has already recorded the statement of the petitioner as well as his vendor, from whom the petitioner claimed to have purchased the land in respect of which he entered into an agreement with the informant/builder. 7. 6. The case diary produced today reflects that police has already recorded the statement of the petitioner as well as his vendor, from whom the petitioner claimed to have purchased the land in respect of which he entered into an agreement with the informant/builder. 7. The materials collected by the investigating officer, more particularly the statement of the vendor of the informant recorded u/s 161 CrPC does not support the allegation made by the informant in the FIR. Thus, having considered the materials in the case diary and also that the petitioner has already been interrogated by police, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, and as such, the prayer for pre-arrest bail deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 20.12.2019 granting interim bail to the petitioner is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions. Consequently, the I.A. (Crl.) 46/2020 stands disposed of. Send down the case diary. AB stand disposed of.