Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010150022025 2025:GAU-AS:11948 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1669/2025 MD JAKIR HUSSAIN S/O MD. UKIL UDDIN R/O VILL- BARDHAP P.O. MARUWATARI P.S. MUKALMUA DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S H RAHMAN(INFORMANT),MR. M S MONDAL (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 03.09.2025 Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. By this application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, viz., Md. Jakir Hussain has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Mukalmua Police Station Case No.212/2024 registered under Sections 120- B/468/471/384/409 of the IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No.695/2024. The F.I.R. dated 30.05.2024 lodged by the victim inter-alia reveals that the petitioner had taken the necessary documents from the informant with the promise that he would provide a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojona scheme and by filing fake educational certificates had procured an appointment certificate in the name of the informant for opening a CSP and for that CSP he forged the signature of the informant and that the petitioner had also cheated likewise with other persons and had illegally embezzled funds from various Government schemes. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the story projected by the informant is concocted inasmuch as the other victims had not approached the concerned authorities with their grievance, if any, as has been alleged by the victim. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that the complainant in his statement before the police has alleged in similar terms as he stated in the F.I.R. However, he fairly submits that there are no statements of similarly situated victims as stated by the informant. Although he submits that there are other witnesses who had stated about the transactions but they are not conversant about the same. On the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal Page No.# 3/3 of the records and more specifically that an agreement of settlement has been reached between the parties i.e. the informant and the petitioner and also on the fact that no other victims have come forward against the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two local surety of the like amount to satisfaction of the arresting authority under the following conditions :- (1) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. (2) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not influence the witnesses connected with the case. (3) That the petitioner shall not leave the place of his residence without permission of the arresting authority. The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant