Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010125622025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1326/2025 RAJESH KUMAR JAIN AND ANR S/O LATE MOHAN LAL JAIN R/O BOC GATE WARD NO. 13, P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783380 2: RAHUL KUMAR JAIN S/O RAJESH KUMAR JAIN R/O BOC GATE WARD NO. 13 P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON DIST. BOGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78338 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHUYAN, P BHOWMICK,N.R. SHARMA,MR A SHARMA,MR J DAS,MR A TALUKDAR,MR. A KHOUND,MS. N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. H. Sikdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Rajesh Kumar Jain, and (2) Rahul Kumar Jain, who are appending their arrest in connection with Bongaigaon P. S. Case No. 125/2025 under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/329(3) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 20.05.025, one Upananda Sarma had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bongaigaon Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that a plot of land measuring about 3 Bighas covered by Dag No. 309, situated in Rakhuldubi Tini Ali of Lot No. 5 in Daukijhar Village under Manikpur Revenue Centre in Bongaigaon district, was purchased by one Kaushal Kumbhat. However, in his absence, one Jagdish Barman continued to cultivate the said land. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that in the month of January-February, 2024, the present petitioners forcefully occupied the land, claiming it to be their own. 5. It is also alleged that the petitioners managed to transfer their names in the records of right fraudulently in collusion with the Revenue Circle Official. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR has been lodged by a third person and it is not reflected in the FIR as to how the informant is connected with the same land. 7. He further submits that the petitioner No.1 was the owner of the plot Page No.# 3/4 of land and in the year 2017 itself, his name was mutated in the records of rights in respect of the said land. 8. He further submits that petitioner No.2, who is the son of the petitioner No.1, is now the owner of the land as the said land was transferred by way of sale by the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2 in the year 2023. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted the documents like Jamabandi, Sale Permission, etc. in support of his submission. 10. He also submits that the petitioners are ready to cooperate in the investigation and considering the fact that they are owner of the land, their custodial detention may not be necessary. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed for calling of the case diary, however, the FIR in this case has been lodged after more than 1 year 3 months of the alleged possession of the land by the petitioners. 12. It is also not clear that as to what interest, the informant has been vested, as nothing has been stated in the FIR about the said fact. 13. Further, on perusal of the documents annexed along with the bail application, it appears that the name of the present petitioners are there in the records in respect of the land, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioners cooperate in the investigation, their custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 14. Hence, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to both the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer of Bongaigaon P. S. Case No. 125/2025 within a period of seven days from the date of this order and cooperate in the investigation. If they do so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of their arrest in connection with the above mentioned case, Page No.# 4/4 they shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with the following conditions:- i. The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation, ii. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 15. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant