Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010193502025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2061/2025 SWAGAT PRABIN SAIKIA S/O SRI PRABIN CHANDRA SAIKIA R/O SHANTIPUR, NEMATI ROAD, BYPASS CHARIALI, JORHAT, P.O, P.S. AND DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM PIN-785101. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MD. S M RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 23.10.2025 Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. M. Rahman, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, as well as Mr. A. K. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 7. 2. The present application has been instituted invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, by the petitioner praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with Jorhat P.S. Case No.350/2025, registered under Sections 336(3)/339/340(2)/61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The respondent nos.2 to 7 had lodged an FIR on 11.07.2025, against the present petitioner and others, pertaining to the manner in which a plot of land claimed by the informants to be theirs were mutated in the name of the petitioner by way of partition. 4. This court on considering the materials coming on record was pleased vide order dated 29.08.2025, to grant interim pre- arrest bail to the petitioner, herein, however subject to the conditions, inter alia, that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. Page No.# 3/5 5. The Case Diary has been produced by Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. This Court on perusal of the Case Diary finds that in terms of the liberty granted to the petitioner, herein, he had appeared before the Investigating Officer and had recorded his statement. The Case Record does not reveal that the petitioner is not co-operating with the Investigating Officer, in the investigation of the matter. 7. At this stage, the objection raised by Mr. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 7, is to be noted. Mr. Baruah, has submitted that the petitioner, in the event, is granted the liberty of pre-arrest bail, he would hamper the investigation of the matter and tamper with the evidences. It is submitted that the petitioner, herein, would also, given the freedom now accorded on account of being granted bail by this Court, would pressurize the respondent nos.2 to 7, to compromise the matter and also to withdraw the criminal proceedings instituted by them against the petitioner. 8. This Court has considered the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 7. 9. On a consideration of the same in the light of the materials coming on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the offence alleged against the petitioner is required to be proved basically through documentary evidences. The documentary Page No.# 4/5 evidences are available in the custody of the State Respondents. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner would not be called for. However, the apprehensions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 7, of the petitioner, herein, hampering or tampering with the investigation of the case, can be taken care of, by this Court by imposing strict conditions in this connection. 10. In view of the above position, the interim pre-arrest bail, granted to the petitioner, herein, by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2025, is made absolute subject to the following conditions ; (i) the petitioner, herein, shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with him in the early conclusion of the investigation in the matter ; (ii) the petitioner, herein, shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person(s), acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer. (iii) the petitioner, herein, shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, without prior permission of the Court. 11. Any violation of the above condition would be good ground for the respondents to initiate the process for cancellation of the liberty of bail granted by this Court to the petitioner, herein. Page No.# 5/5 12. With the above observations and directions, the present Anticipatory Bail application is disposed of. 13. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant