Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010237232025 2025:GAU-AS:14694 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2570/2025 MONIKA TIMUNG ROY AND ANR W/O - SRI. RANA ROY AGE 38 YEARS R/O-VILL-CHANGMAJI PATHAR P.S. - DOBOKA, DIST-HOJAI, ASSAM 2: SRI RANA ROY S/O- SRI RADHA RAMAN ROY R/O- VILL-CHANGMAJI PATHAR P.S- DOBOKA DIST-HOJAI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I RAFIQUE, N CHAKRABORTY,MS A AFREEN,MRS S A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 31.10.2025 Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. PP for the State. Page No.# 2/4 By this application the petitioner has prayed for pre arrest bail in connection with Doboka P.S Case No. 193 of 2025 registered under Section 318(4)/336(3)/316(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 4(3) of the Assam Land Grabbing Act. The F.I.R dated 04.10.2025 reveals that the informant entered into agreement with the petitioner for selling of two plots of land which the petitioner is the owner. The informant stated that an advance was demanded by the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 19,90,000/- was paid. However, it was stated that thereafter, the petitioner stopped the further exercise in bringing into effect the agreement between them and that the petitioner stopped answering phone calls and replying any messages. It is as such, stated that the petitioner and her husband had deceitfully extracted money from the informant without any intention of completing the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fact an agreement was entered between the petitioner and the informant for sell of the said plot of lands and that money was also taken by the petitioner, but he submits that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner not to give effect to the agreement. And as such, he submits that the allegation made by the informant against the petitioner is concocted. Page No.# 3/4 The learned Addl. PP however, submits that there is enough materials showing in the F.I.R that the petitioner had intentionally stopped further communication with the informant and that was her action of not entertaining the deed of agreement. On the consideration of the submissions made at the bar, more so the fact that the petitioner had admitted the deed of agreement and taking of money and that it is stated that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to not entertain in the agreement, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner be released on pre arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with 1 local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority under the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 (seven) days from today and will co-operate with the investigation. 2. The petitioner will not temper with the evidence or influence any other witnesses connected with the instant case. 3. The petitioner will not leave the place of residence without the permission of the arresting authority. Page No.# 4/4 Matter is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant