Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010255812024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3167/2024 DHARMESWAR ROY S/O LATE JAGAT DIPEN ROY R/O SORONIA SAI KRIPA BHAWAN, HOUSE NO. 2A, P.S.PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 05.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the Page No.# 2/4 petitioner, namely, Dharmeswar Roy, who is appending his arrest in connection with Panbazar Police Station Case No. 320/2024 registered under Sections 303(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 23.10.2024 one Shri Anandi Thakur had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of the Panbazar Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner has frauded him by falsely promising him to sale his car at a consideration amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- 4. It is stated in the FIR that the informant had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- via Google pay to the petitioner, however, when the informant went to meet the petitioner on 23.10.2024 at CJM Court premises and paid an additional amount of Rs. 2.5 lakh. Neither the money was returned back and nor the car was handed over and the petitioner left the place duping the informant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is doing the business in dealing with second hand vehicle and in this regard, he had received Rs. 1,00,000/- from the informant for sale of a second hand car. 6. However, he submits that there was some dispute regarding the terms and conditions of the sale, and therefore, the vehicle was not handed over. 7. He submits that the nature of dispute between the parties is predominantly of civil in nature and the FIR has been lodged again the petitioner only to pressurize him. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Panbazar Police Station Case No. 320/2024 and submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary. 9. He further submits that during the enquiry, the Investigating Officer Page No.# 3/4 also found that several cases has been registered against the petitioner in connection with similar nature of cases of cheating and fraud in various police stations and therefore, he prays for rejecting the prayer for bail. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 11. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the informant regarding the sale of a car at the total consideration amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. 12. It also appears that the nature of dispute between the parties primarily appears to be a civil nature, however, this in itself may not rule out the ingredients of a criminal case in this case. 13. The investigation would reveal the true facts, however considering the nature of the case as well as considering the fact that the petitioner ready to cooperate in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 14. Hence, the above named petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Panbazar Police Station Case No. 320/2024 within a period of seven days from the date of this order and cooperate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest in connection with the above mentioned case, he shall be allowed to go on interim bail Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with the following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation, ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to other person Page No.# 4/4 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. 16. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant