Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020000332025 2025:GAU-NL:59 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : AB/5/2025 SRI JAGDISH SINGH S/O SRI DULU SINGH R/O NO.1 BANGALIGAON P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM-786602 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA Advocate for the Petitioner : NURUL HASAN, I K BURAGOHAIN,MEDO VERO,MANJONG KONYAK Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 28.02.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nurul Hasan. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner in Diphupar PS Case No. 74/2024 under Section 406/418 IPC. It is stated that the complainant had lodged an FIR before the O/C of Diphupar Police Station on 28.11.2024 stating that the petitioner/accused had entered into a written agreement cum memorandum of understanding for execution of contract work which was awarded to the accused. Thereafter, the accused/petitioner had sub- let the said work to the complainant with the understanding that the accused would receive all the payments in his bank account but would release 98% of the payment to the complainant while retaining 2%. The FIR states that inspite of completion of the entire work the accused did not release the payment of 98% as agreed between the parties. It was also stated in the FIR that a Declaration was agreed and signed between the parties at Diphupar, Dimapur on 23.09.2024 which is at Annexure-4 of the petition. According to the Declaration, the accused/petitioner had admitted his liability and promised to repay an amount of ₹1,32,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty-two Lakhs) to the complainant and that the same shall be finalized on 15.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused had paid an amount of ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand). However, the balance amount was not paid to the complainant and hence the complaint was lodged. 3. This Court, by Order dated 11.02.2025 had called for the scanned copies of the Case Diary of the Diphupar PS Case No. 74/2024 under Section 406/418 IPC and the learned PP was also directed to clarify as to whether the Diphupar Police Station has the jurisdiction to register the present case against the petitioner when the dispute between the Page No.# 3/4 complainant and the petitioner/accused relates to the execution of contractual work at Karbi Anglong, Assam. This Court had also granted interim bail to the accused/petitioner with the condition that the petitioner shall appear before the IO of the Diphupar Police Station on or before 25.02.2025 and the petitioner was to be released in the event of arrest on executing a bail bond of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand). 4. Today, the learned PP, Mr. E. Thiba Phom produced scanned copy of the Case Diary and upon perusal it is seen that the accused/petitioner had appeared before the IO at Diphupar Police Station on 19.02.2025 and his statement has been recorded by the IO. In the statement before the IO, the petitioner/accused has admitted that he is yet to pay the amount of ₹1,32,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Thirty two Lakhs) to the complainant due to financial problems. Regarding the jurisdiction, the learned PP has submitted that the last Declaration signed between the petitioner/accused and the complainant was signed and executed at Diphupar on 23.09.2024 and hence the Diphupar Police Station has the jurisdiction to register the present case. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the scanned copy of the Case Diary. Custodial Interrogation in a criminal case is required especially when there is a chance of the accused absconding or avoiding the process of law and also to unearth facts of the case which are not evident on the face of the records available. However, in the present case, the petitioner/accused has already admitted that he owes an amount of ₹1,32,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Thirty-two lakhs) to the complainant and he has also appeared Page No.# 4/4 before the IO and has given his statement. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that his custodial interrogation is not required at this stage and, therefore, the interim bail passed on 11.02.2025 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions. 6. Petition stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant