Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010151142026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1687/2026 JAHAN UDDIN S/O AYNAL HOQUE, VILLAGE BASANTAPUR N.C., P.O. DALGOMA, P.S. MATIA, DISTRICT GOALPARA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ALI, MR. J UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. M. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. By this application under Section 482 BNSS, the petitioner namely, Jahan Uddin, has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Matia P.S. Case No.63/2026 under Sections Page No.# 2/3 120(B)/420/406/506 IPC. 3. The FIR dated 16/6/2026 reveals that the petitioner along with four others jointly promised to sell a plot of land measuring 25 lechas covered by Dag No. 425, Patta No. 128 of village Kadamtola Gopalpur. It is further stated that the informant, believing the petitioner and others executed a sale deed on 7/5/2022 and 19/12/2022 and in pursuance of the same, a total consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- was paid in five installments. However, it is stated in the FIR that although money was taken by the petitioner and others, but land was not given to him and that later, the petitioner and others have refused to hand over the possession of the land and threatened the informant not to press the matter any further. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not the owner of the land and that false allegation is made against him. 5. However, Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned AP for the state submits that the ingredients of cheating is writ large, in the FIR, inasmuch as, the money was taken from the informant and possession of the land was not given to him. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the records. It is it is noticed that in the FIR, it is not stated that the petitioner is the owner of the said plot of land and sale deed was executed with him by the informant for purchase of the said land. The informant had no where stated in the said FIR as to who is the owner of the land and without knowing the owner of the land, no prudent person will enter into an agreement for sale and purchase of the land thereof. 7. As such, the Court finds it fit that the petitioner named above be released on pre- arrest bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority under the following conditions:- a) that the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for; b) that the Petitioner to refrain from influencing the witnesses connected in the case; Page No.# 3/3 c) that the petitioner is directed not to hamper or tamper with the evidences of the instant case. 8. In terms of the above, the Anticipatory bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant