Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010153782026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1700/2026 ANWAR HUSAIN BORBHUYAN S/O- LATE NOOR UDDIN BORBHUYAN,R/O-DOBOKA TOWN,WARD NO.4,P.O AND P.S-DOBOKA,DIST-HOJAI ASSAM, PIN- 782440. CONTACT NO. 8822413301 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P BORAH, MS. T BURAGOHAIN,MR B PAUL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, 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, Anwar Hussain Page No.# 2/3 Borbhuyan, has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Doboka P.S. Case No.99/2026 registered under Sections 316/336(3) of BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR dated 8th July 2026, filed by the informant, reveals that the informant had inherited a part of the land left by her father and that she entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of a plot of land measuring 2 bighas, 1 katha and 12 lechers, covered by dag number 56 and Patta No. 161. She further submits in the said FIR that Rs.10 lakh was paid as an advance money by the petitioner, but the property, which she intends to sell to the petitioner, was much more valuable than the one which she had sold to him. She states in the said FIR that she had agreed to sell a plot of land which is covered by two bighas, 1 katha, 12 lechas as mentioned above @ Rs. 60 lakhs per bigha. She submits that in the agreement for sale, wherein, she had put her signature, there was a gap between her signature and the last line of the said agreement. She further alleges that in that particular gap, another plot of land was reflected, which was of a lesser value. She as such alleges that the petitioner had cheated her in respect of sale of her property. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that there were two plots of land, which the informant wanted to sale to the buyers and in respect of one plot of land, which is 1 bigha, 4 kathas and 18 lechas, the informant submits that there is insertion of one line giving the description of the land and in which she had received Rs.10 lakhs as advance and according to her, that plot of land she has not sold to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in respect of other plot of the land also, the informant had entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner, for which the informant has also received money from him to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the title suits have been filed for specific performance of the contract agreement by the petitioner in respect of both the lands. He also submits that the informant after receiving the summons in both the title suits has filed the instant FIR against the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that it Page No.# 3/3 is revealed that the petitioner had in fact given money to the informant and that the informant has also accepted that she has accepted money from the petitioner. But it has been specifically stated in the FIR that forgery has been done by the petitioner in respect of the lands in question. 8. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the petitioner had filed two title suits being TS No. 44 of 2026 as well as TS No. 38 of 2026 for specific performance of the sale agreement between the petitioner and the informant, for both the plots of land and the said cases are pending disposal before the learned court. As such, it is seen that the instant case is of civil nature and the entire gamut of the case is looked into by trial court. 9. Further, it is also noticed that in the FIR, the informant has accepted that she has agreed for sale of her land to the petitioner as well as has received money from him. As such, this Court finds it fit to release the petitioner named above 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 subject to 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; c) that the petitioner is directed not to hamper or tamper with the evidences of the instant case. 10. 10. With the above observation and direction, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant