Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010191352024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2464/2024 BHARAT LAL CHAUHAN S/O LT. BASUDEB CHAUHAN VILL- PUB -SILPUTA P.O. RAJAPATHAR P.S. BAKALIA DIST. EAST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM PIN-782482 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, R DEB,M. BORUAH,MR N ALAM,MR. P MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 25.09.2025. Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/5 This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner namely, Bharat Lal Chauhan who is apprehending arrest in connection with the Bakalia P.S. Case No. 63/2023, under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/408/197/198 of the Indian Penal Code. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is innocent and his name is also not mentioned in the FIR. More so, the accused petitioner has already appeared before the I.O. and extended his cooperation and his statement is also recorded accordingly, in connection with the case. The accused petitioner is a farmer and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. However, he is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of the case, if he is provided with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence. He further submitted that it is a fact that the name of the present accused petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR but during the investigation, found involvement of the present accused petitioner in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the allegation against the present accused petitioner and other co-accused are very serious in nature wherein they used to provide fake domicile certificates to some persons showing them to be residents of the Karbi Anglong District and a big racket is involved in the alleged offence, wherein people from various Departments are also associated in the case. Showing the Page No.# 3/5 land in the name of some other persons, they used to provide voter list to some people as the residents of the State of Assam, stating them to be inhabitants of the Karbi Anglong District. He further submitted that this is an organized crime, wherein lots of people are involved and they not only provided fake domicile certificate, with the help of the present accused petitioner but also helped some other persons from outside the State of Assam to procure job in defence and paramilitary forces in the State quota. He further submitted that from the note of the I.O. also it is noticed that the present accused petitioner along with other accused used to forge documents on the basis of which the candidates from outside the State of Assam are taking the benefits in the recruitment process in the Army and other paramilitary forces, depriving the deserving candidates of the State of Assam since long. Mr. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that from the statement of witnesses from the locality, it also revealed that the present accused petitioner also entered names of some other persons who are not inhabitants of the said locality in the voters’ list by obtaining some forged documents, which was also informed to the Gaonburha by some of the witnesses. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the case is of very serious in nature, wherein lots of people are associated in the entire racket and hence, the custodial interrogation of the present accused petitioner may be required for the purpose of investigation. He further submitted that the statement of the accused petitioner may be recorded but from the note of the I.O., it is seen that his custodial interrogation will be required to unearth some more facts of the case and also to nab the other culprits who are also involved in the alleged offence. Accordingly, he raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit Page No.# 4/5 case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail. In that context, Mr. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is basically cultivator and his land documents may be obtained online by some other persons and the same may be used in obtaining some forged documents but he is not the beneficiary of such forged documents nor involved in the alleged offence. Hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary and accordingly, it is seen that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused petitioner who is also involved in procuring some forged documents on the basis of which some fake domicile certificates were issued which certificates were used for getting service in the defence forces by forging their identity and at the same time, with the help of forged documents or fake domicile certificate, some persons have also obtained PRC claiming themselves to be the permanent resident of the State of Assam illegally. Thus it is seen that it is a very well organized racket, wherein many people are involved in the said case and as submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, some other people from various Departments may also involved in the racket of issuing fake domicile certificate etc. So far considering the nature of the allegation and the stage of investigation, I find that custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may be required for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, in view of the Court, the accused/petitioner is not entitled for Page No.# 5/5 pre-arrest bail and accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is dismissed and the earlier interim order granted to the present petitioner dated 23.01.2025, is hereby stands vacated. The pre-arrest bail petition stands disposed of. Return back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant