Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010032752025 2025:GAU-AS:3644 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/385/2025 ASURUDDIN ALI S/O HAJARAT ALI R/OKANAK CHANDRA MIKIR PATH, SONAIGHULI, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, P. KALITA,MR. A PARAMANIK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 28.03.2025 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Paramanik, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with the Dispur P.S. Case No. 384/2022, under Sections 341/447/427/34 of the IPC, added Sections 120(B)/468/423/471 of the IPC, this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by applicant namely, Asuruddin Ali for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR, lodged by one Debabrat Mahanta, on 17.02.2022. The essence of allegation in the aforesaid FIR is that some unknown persons have closed the road leading to the land belonging to his father situated at Saukuchi, bearing Dag No. 888, Patta No. 191 and also tried to take possessions of the said plot of land by filling earth. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant and the first one, being AB No. 264/2024, was rejected by this court, vide order dated 06.02.2024. Mr. Choudhury referring to the FIR submits that the complaint relates to a plot of land covering Dag No. 888 and Patta No. 191 and the present applicant has nothing to do with the said plot of land and that he had purchased one plot of land measuring 3 kathas, covered by Dag No. 195/196 and KP No. 886/888, from one Naba Kumar Patowary, situated at Sawkuchi revenue village. Mr. Choudhury further referring to forwarding report of one of co-accused, namely, Nijam Basumotary submits that the IO himself is not sure in respect of which plot of land the alleged occurrence took place. Mr. Choudhury also submits that the applicant is no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. Per-contra, by producing the case diary before this court, Ms. Das, Page No.# 3/4 learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is still going on and from the materials collected so far in the case diary, show the complicity of the present applicant with the offence alleged in the FIR. Ms. Das further submits that the first anticipatory bail application was rejected by this court after perusing the case diary and no change of circumstances could be shown in favour of the applicant. Therefore, Ms. Das has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary produced before this court with the assistance of Ms. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. It appears that earlier anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant was rejected by this court after perusing the case diary on 06.02.2024 and thereafter, no circumstance appears to be changed in his favour to reconsider the same. 8. The materials collected so far in the case diary indicates his involvement with the offence alleged in the FIR. It is a fact that in the document enclosed with the application, i.e. the deed of agreement, shows that the applicant had purchased one plot of land measuring 3 kathas, covered by Dag No. 195/196 and KP No. 886/888, from one Naba Kumar Patowary, situated at Sawkuchi revenue village. But aid agreement is unregistered document. Further, the materials collected in the case diary indicates that in the entire episode, he had taken an active part and the witnesses examined so far had clearly implicated him with the alleged offences. 9. Under such circumstances, this court is unable to agree with the Page No.# 4/4 submission of Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing the applicant that he is not at all involved with the alleged offence concerning the plot of land so reflected in the FIR of this case. 10. Accordingly, in view of the materials available in the case diary, it cannot be said the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required in the interest of investigation and as such, this anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. 11. Case diary be returned. 12. The applicant shall surrender before the IO with a period of 1 (one) week from today. JUDGE Comparing Assistant