Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010106782026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1128/2026 SRI SUSANTA RUDRA SON OF LATE PRAFULLA KR. RUDRA. R/O TOKOBARI, P.O-PANBAZAR, P.S- BHARALUMUKH. DISTRICT-KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DARAK ULLAH, A. H. AHMED,D.R. AHMED,DEBAKSHI BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date :30.07.2026 Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Basistha Police Station Case No.160/2026, registered under Page No.# 2/3 Sections 61(2)/316(2)/318(4)/338/340(2)/351(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged by the informant on 19.05.2026, stating inter alia that the petitioner being the sole owner of a plot of land, had sold the said land to the informants by executing a registered sale deed. 4. It is further stated that pursuant to the said sale deed, the said land was also mutated in the name of the informants and that the names of the informants were entered and recorded in the Jamabandi. However, the informants alleged that, subsequent thereto, the original owner of the said land in conspiracy with another person again has entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the same land. It is also alleged that the other person with whom the original owner had entered into an agreement to sale the land had threatened the informant to vacate the possession of the said land. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the mutation done in respect of the informants, there is no question of re-selling of the land again which will be not acceptable in the eyes of Law. He further submits that the petitioner was enlarged on interim pre-arrest bail by order dated 01.06.2026, under one of the condition that he should appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 (ten) days. 6. He submits that, in compliance of the said order, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement was recorded. 7. Ms. S. H. Borah, the learned APP for the State, submits that necessary exercise by the police in order to see as to who is the owner of the land has not been completed and as such, submits that after the completion of the exercise, the bail may be granted. Page No.# 3/3 8. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels and more so, in view of the fact that, the land has been registered in the name of the complainants and also due to the fact that the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer, this Court finds it fit that the order dated 01.06.2026, be made absolute and the petitioner be allowed to go on pre-arrest bail. 9. Accordingly, this AB application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant