Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010010352024 2025:GAU-AS:9731 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/156/2024 BIHARI LAL SHARMA S/O BASUDEV SHARMA R/O S.J. ROAD, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI-1 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MS T J SAHEWALLA,MR M SAHEWALLA,MS. S KATAKEY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : AB/157/2024 MANOJ KUMAR AGARWALA S/O LATE K.L. AGARWALA R/O 176 FA ROAD KUMARPARA PANCHALI GUWAHATI-1 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 29-07-2025 Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, namely, Sri Bihari Lal Sharma and Manoj Kumar Agarwala in connection with Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 03/2024 under Sections 120B/420/468/419/471/472 of IPC, 1860. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the present two petitioners are innocent and they are not at all Page No.# 3/4 involved in the alleged offence. But, the company of the petitioners genuinely purchased land from one Dhirendra Mohan Das by executing a Sale Deed. 5. Further, it is submitted by Mr. Sahewalla that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail on 19.01.2024 both the petitioners have already appeared before the I/O and cooperated in the investigation. Further, he submitted that one civil suit was filed by the complainant but subsequently it was withdrawn which was numbered as T.S. No. 304/2023 by the Company. 6. Mr. Sahewalla further submitted that from the context of the FIR and the materials, it is seen that the case is of civil in nature and the parties may approach the civil court in this regard. But, both the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate the I/O in further investigation of the case, if they are granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 7. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the materials available in the Case Diary it reveals that one Satish Kalita was the original owner of the land and behind his back three Sale Deeds were executed in favour of one Bhimkanta Das representing the company, namely, M/s Rajshekhar Const. Pvt. Ltd. as purchaser of land from one Dhirendra Mohan Das. But, surprisingly both Dhirendra Mohan Das and Bhimkanta Das are not traceable and the petitioners also could not identify those persons and could not give any details of those persons who stated to be the seller and purchaser of land in question. Also, it is submitted by Mr. Borthakur that one affidavit is also sworn by said Dhirendra Mohan Das and the petitioner Bihari Lal Sharma also executed an affidavit declaring that the land does not belongs to tribal belt. Thus, it is submitted by Mr. Borthakur that some fraud has been played in executing those Sale Deed in favour of one Bhimkanta Page No.# 4/4 Das which was shown to be executed by one Dhirendra Mohan Das. However, he submitted that petitioners have cooperated in the investigation and regarding their pendency of civil suit is not known as it is not reflected in the Case Diary. 8. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and considering of materials in the Case Diary, it is seen that some materials are there against the present petitioners. But, it is seen that both the petitioners are on interim pre-arrest bail since 19.01.2024 and they are extending their cooperation. In the same time it is seen that the case may be of civil in nature and the civil suit was also filed to that regard which was subsequently withdrawn by the complainant itself. Considering all the aspect of the case, I find that the custodial interrogation of the present petitioners may not be required for the interest of investigation. However, they are directed to extend their cooperation in further investigation of the case and accordingly the order of interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners on 19.01.2024 is hereby made absolute with same terms and conditions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant