ORDER : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Anil Rajkhowa, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kampur P.S. Case No. 50/2025, under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. 3. It is pertinent to mention herein that on an earlier occasion also, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, however, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by order dated 23.05.2025 in AB Case No. 1082/2025. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that one Dilip Paul had on 03.04.2025 lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Kampur Police Station, naming two accused therein, namely, Bibha Bora and Anil Rajkhowa (present petitioner), inter-alia, alleging that the accused No.1, in conspiracy with accused No.2, has obtained the NOC, which was in the name of the informant and, thereafter, by editing the same had utilized it for executing sale deed in favour of accused No.2. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court again on a few new grounds which were not pleaded earlier when this bail application was rejected. 6. He submits that on perusal of the FIR, it appears that no allegation has been lodged against the present petitioner. He submits that in the FIR the NOC of the informant Dilip Paul has been alleged to be forged by the accused No. 1 named in the FIR, namely Smt. Bibha Bora. However, the petitioner had only purchased the land of Bibha Bora after paying valid consideration and after executing a valid sale deed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused No. 1 Bibha Bora is the lawful owner of a plot of land which was purchased by the present petitioner and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner in purchasing the said land. 8. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused No. 1 Bibha Bora is the lawful owner of a plot of land which was purchased by the present petitioner and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner in purchasing the said land. 8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the copy of Jamabandi annexed along with the bail application wherein, it appears that the accused No. 1, Bibha Bora had sold a plot of land by executing registered deed No. 1019/1017 dated 01.01.2022 to the present petitioner. 9. He has also submitted that another fact which was not brought to the notice of this Court on earlier occasions, is that one Ranjit Hazarika, the lat Mandal, who was instrumental in doing the mutation in the name of the present petitioner in respect of the land purchased by Bibha Bora was assaulted by one Jugal Rajbongshi and in the said case Bibha Bora is one of the prime witnesses. Hence, to pressurize her not to dispose against the accused person, this false case has been lodged against Bibha Bora and the present petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner has purchased the land belonging to the accused No. 1 Bibha Bora only, no offence of cheating under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 has been committed by him as alleged in this case. 11. He further submits that the petitioner is a retired SI of Police and is ready to co-operate in the investigation. Hence, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is 64 years old person having serious heart ailment and hypertension as well as high blood sugar and in support of his submissions, he has annexed at Annexure-8 series certain medical documents. 13. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. N. Das has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that his earlier bail application was rejected after finding sufficient incriminating materials against him as well as also the fact that he had misused the liberty granted to him by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon. 14. N. Das has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that his earlier bail application was rejected after finding sufficient incriminating materials against him as well as also the fact that he had misused the liberty granted to him by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon. 14. He also submits that during search of the premises of the present petitioner false NOC were recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. 15. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel of both sides and have perused the Case Diary which has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 16. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary, however, it appears that the main accused Smt. Bibha Bora has been released on bail by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC by order dated 31.05.2025 in Bail Application No. 8092/2025. 17. It appears that in this case in the FIR, the main accusation regarding forging the NOC of the informant has been lodged against the accused No. 1 Smt. Bibha Bora. The accusation against the present petitioner is that he is a co-conspirator of the alleged crime. It appears that one other accused, namely, Mousum Rajkhowa, who is the son of the present petitioner, has also been released on bail. 18. In the instant case, one very important aspect is that the petitioner was granted interim bail by order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 (FTC), Nagaon. However, after getting interim protection, there are materials on record to indicate that the petitioner misused his liberty and approached the complainant and tried to influence him to withdraw the complaint. Accordingly, by order dated 09.05.2025 passed in B.A. Case No. 627/2025, the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 (FTC), Nagaon have vacated the interim bail granted to the petitioner. 19. It is pertinent to mention herein that on the earlier occasions also, this Court rejected the anticipatory bail to the petitioner mainly on the ground that he tried to abuse the liberty granted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while on interim bail. 19. It is pertinent to mention herein that on the earlier occasions also, this Court rejected the anticipatory bail to the petitioner mainly on the ground that he tried to abuse the liberty granted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while on interim bail. This aspect cannot be ignored by this Court as the petitioner has failed to overcome the accusation made against him regarding his misusing the liberty of interim bail granted to him. 20. The benefit of a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS , 2023 may not be granted to a person who is found to have indulged in misusing the liberty, granted to him in the form of interim bail as this is a serious accusation. Any attempt to misuse the liberty while on interim bail cannot be overlooked as this is a serious interference in the fair investigation of the case. This Court is, therefore, reluctant to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in this case. 21. The prayer for anticipatory bail is accordingly rejected.