Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010223962025 2025:GAU-AS:14488 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3263/2025 JOY PRAKASH LAHKAR SON OF SHRI DIPCHANDRA LAHKAR, R/O- HOUSE NO. 141 RANGIA TOWN, P.S. RANGIA, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781354. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. U K DEKA (INFORMANT),MR S BORTHAKUR (INFORMANT) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 29.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.K. Deka, learned counsel for the informant. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Joy Prakash Lahkar, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Dispur P.S Case No. 108/2025 registered under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/316(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The accused is stated to have been arrested on 19.09.2025. 4. The case arose out of an ejahar dated 15.11.2024, lodged by one Sankar Hazarika. 5. The gist of the allegations are that the informant entered into an agreement for sale with co-accused Mrs. Jyotshna Lahkar, the mother of the present petitioner in respect of a plot of land for a consideration amount of about Rs. 1 Crore in cash and by cheque. 6. However, it is alleged that thereafter, the said co- accused/mother of the present petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of her son, the present petitioner, who mutated the land and also entered into transactions with other purchasers. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meantime, the co-accused, who is the mother of the petitioner, Page No.# 3/4 has been enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that length of detention may also be considered. 8. Case diary has been received. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the accused persons have adopted a modus operandi to indulge in such activities with several persons and the investigation has significantly implicated them. 10. The learned counsel for the informant, opposing the bail, submits that he has not received the money back, and that the whole family involving the petitioner and his mother is involved in such illegal activities with other persons. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has drawn my attention to the statement of witnesses Karim Ali and Dulal Gohain which lend support to the contentions of the prosecution. 12. It is also revealed from the investigation that the petitioner and his father has stood as witnesses regarding the agreement for sale made with the complainant; but even thereafter, the land was transferred in his name by co-accused, his mother. 13. I find force in the contention of the prosecution and the informant’s side that in view of the materials revealed and the fact that the investigation has not yet been completed, this may not be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. 14. Therefore, the prayer for bail application stands rejected. Page No.# 4/4 15. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. 16. Return back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant