Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11856 (GAU)

AMAR DEKA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/1023/2025 · 2025-05-04

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010094112025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1023/2025 AMAR DEKA S/O- BHUPEN DEKA. R/O- NEAR DURGA MANDIR, GARUGHULI, GARCHUK, P.O. AND P.S.- GARCHUK, GUWAHATI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 05.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. G. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S.Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party/respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, namely, AMAR DEKA, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with a GD Entry which was registered in Garchuk Police Station as GDE No. 51/2025 on 22.03.2025. Said GD Entry was made in Garchuk Police Station on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Navin Kumar Mishra on 22.03.2025. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that an agreement for sale of possessory right was executed by the petitioner in favour of the first informant/wife of said Navin Kumar Mishra. However, it is also alleged that the petitioner is obstructing the first informant in using the said land and enjoying the said property. 4. It is also alleged that the petitioner has cheated the first informant and also committed breach of trust by converting the land which was shown to the informant as his own land. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that bare perusal of the FIR would show that the dispute raised by the first informant is purely civil in nature. He has further submitted that however, the police from Garchuk Police Station has been repeatedly directed the petitioner to appear before the said Police Station and therefore, he apprehends that if he appears before the Police Station, he may be arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that there was no basis of apprehension of getting arrest as the FIR is yet to be registered and no Police Station case has been registered till today. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsels for both the sides. 8. On perusal of the FIR filed by the first informant, a copy of which was annexed with the application, it appears that though the allegations of cheating and committing breach of trust have been made in the said FIR, basically the dispute raised therein is to be civil in nature. However, as GD Entry has been made and the allegation of cheating and committing breach of trust is made in the FIR, therefore, this Court is of the view that if Page No.# 3/3 he co-operates with the police, his custodial detention may not be necessary in the enquiry or in the case which may be registered on the basis of said FIR lodged on 22.03.2025. 9. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Officer-in- Charge of Garchuk Police Station within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of this order and co-operate with the enquiry/investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid GDE No. 51/2025 dated 22.03.2025 or any Police Station case which may be registered on the basis of said GD Entry, he shall be allowed to go on interim bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions that:- (i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation, (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer. 10. With the above observations, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant