Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040015842024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/135/2024 Likha Serbi Son of Likha Nana, permanent resident of Village Belo, PO Pistana, PS Yazali, Keyi Panyor District, Arunachal Pradesh presently residing at Upper RWD Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Jamoh, B Padung,Bakar Dulom Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 08.01.2025 Heard Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant, namely, Shri Likha Serbi, in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No.214/2024, under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. Page No.# 2/4 3. The case emanates from the written complaint filed by one Shri Charu Tatung on 21.09.2021 to the effect that one Shri Likha Serbi, the applicant herein, while applying for Land Possession Certificate (LPC) submitted No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 13.09.2023 obtained from the office of the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Naharlagun along with other documents necessary for issuance of LPC. Accordingly, the concerned authority had issued a Land Possession Certificate dated 18.03.2024 in favour of the applicant. However, when an RTI application was filed before the office of the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Naharlagun to check the legitimacy of the NOC issued in favour of the said Shri Likha Serbi, the concerned department vide RTI reply dated 16.09.2024 has stated that there is no record/correspondence with regards to the NOC dated 13.09.2023 issued to the said Shri Likha Serbi. The RTI reply by the concerned authority, according to the informant made it clear that the applicant forged the NOC dated 13.09.2023 and also forged the signature of the concerned officer. The applicant herein, on the strength of the LPC which was secured relying on the forged documents is trespassing into the property of the informant/complainant and destroying the same. Therefore, prays for an action against the applicant. 4. On receipt of the above FIR, a case being Itanagar P.S. Case No.214/2024, under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered. 5. Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present FIR has been filed by one Shri Charu Tatung, who had a dispute over the plot of land with the applicant. A title suit was filed by said Charu Tatung before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia, which was registered as Title Suit No.02/2016, whereby the applicant was arrayed as defendant. The said title suit was dismissed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia on 06.06.2022. Thereafter, the issuance of the LPC was initiated by the applicant and accordingly, on submission of the NOC from the concerned authority, the competent authority has issued the LPC. Therefore, he submits that the present FIR has been filed falsely implicating the applicant by way of Page No.# 3/4 vengeance. Therefore, Mr. Vamoh, learned counsel prays that the applicant be granted pre-arrest bail. 6. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, by placing the Case Diary, submits that after recording the statement of the applicant, as the allegation is of forgery of a official document, a requisition under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted to the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Naharlagun for furnishing of details regarding the NOC in question. Accordingly, on the submission of the report from the concerned authority, it is found that No Objection Certificate meant for Land Possession Certificate has never issued from the office of the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Naharlagun. Therefore, a, prima facie, case is established against the present accused applicant. She further submits that since the prima facie case of forgery is established against the applicant, further investigation is required to find out the involvement of more accomplice in the case. Therefore, at this stage, if the applicant is granted bail, he may interfere with the investigation by influencing the other accomplices and as such, the present application may be rejected. 7. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Case Diary as produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. On perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that the statement of the applicant has been recorded. On requisitioned by the Investigating Authority, the concerned authority who issued the NOC, namely, the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Naharlagun, reported that no NOC meant for Land Possession Certificate was found to have issued from the office of the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Naharlagun. The Investigating Authority is of the view that a prima facie case is established against the applicant and further investigation is required to find out the involvement of other accomplice. 9. Having considered that the statement of the applicant has been recorded and on requisitioned, a report has been obtained and the prima facie view of the involvement of Page No.# 4/4 the applicant is stated to have been established. I am of the view that no custodial interrogation of the applicant is appears to be required. Therefore, the applicant namely, Shri Likha Serbi is entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail. 10. Accordingly, the interim order granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant Shri Likha Serbi , in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No.214/2024, under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby made absolute on the following conditions: (i) the accused applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Authority as and when directed; and (ii) the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any threat or inducement to any person with the knowledge of the facts to dissuade from disclosing such facts. 11. The Anticipatory Bail stands allowed and disposed of. Return the CD. JUDGE Comparing Assistant