Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010050472025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./699/2025 SURAJ BHAN SINGH BHANDARI S/O MEHARIBAN SINGH BHANDARI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF H. NO. 333, SECTOR-2,TELIPARA,NAGINA P.S. RAIPUR DIST. BIJOR (UTTAR PRADESH) PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 47, SOUTH BANGALI BASTI, MAIDAMGAON P.S. BASISTHA POLICE STATION, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR U S BORGOHAIN, M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, M PATHAK (INFORMANT),MR. T ALI(INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 13.03.2025 Heard Mr. U.S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. M. Page No.# 2/4 Pathak, learned counsel for the informant. 2. By this application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Suraj Bhan Singh Bhandar, has prayed for bail in connection with Sooeta P.S. Case No. 17/2025 under Section 111(3)/318(2)/316(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been detained in judicial custody for last 28 days since his arrest on 14.02.2025. It is also submitted that the petitioner is no way involved in the alleged offence as stated in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The informant gave Rs. 15,00,000/- to the petitioner upon executed an agreement. During the custody of the accused, an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- was paid to the informant and duly received by him and also the informant agreed to receive the balance amount as per Clause No. 2 of the agreement. Later on, inspite of part payment and also agreed by the informant to receive the balance amount, the police arrested the accused. It is also contended that the allegation as per FIR disclosed recovery of money from the accused which is purely civil in nature. No any offence has been committed under the provision of BNS as alleged, as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a case law- Lalit Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 190. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and raised objection against the prayer of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is very much involved in the alleged Page No.# 3/4 offence and there is sufficient incriminating materials found in the case diary against the petitioner. It is also submitted that some more persons are found to be involved in the alleged offence who are yet to be arrested. Investigation is still under progress. Considering the gravity of the offence, bail may not be considered to the petitioner at this stage of investigation. 5. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the informant has raised strong objection in regard to the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that it is an organized crime and the release of the accused/petitioner at this nascent stage may hamper investigation of the case. 6. On perusal of case diary, it reveals that the accused petitioner along with one Lucky Singh several times came to the Gungun Hotel of the informant. They introduced themselves as a Kapadiya Group Company’s representatives and said that a plot of land was needed for setting up a factory of the said company in Sootea area. Accordingly, the complainant was ready to handover 25 bighas of his land. The accused petitioner and his friend inspected the land and made a verbal settlement with the informant of selling the land with consideration of Rs.6 Crores. Subsequently, the arrested accused person asked the informant to lend him Rs.15 lakhs and the informant handed over the said money with the pretext of selling of his land to the petitioner. But the arrested accused person had stopped communication with the complainant. Though part payment was done on behalf of the accused petitioner but under the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner under the provisions of criminal law. It also appears that investigation is in the preliminary stage. 7. Under such backdrop, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner. Therefore, bail application is rejected. 8. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant