Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010195302026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2169/2026 SMTI REEMA SAIKIA WIFE OF LATE DIPUL BHUYAN AND A RESIDENT OF SRIMANTAPUR, HOUSE NO.1, NEAR - MANDIR BHANGAGARH, P.S. BHANGAGARH, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M), ASSAM - 781005. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D DEKA, N CHAUDHURY,MR A DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 10.09.2026 Heard Mr. N. Chaudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 95/2026 registered under Sections Page No.# 2/3 316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2) of BNS, 2023. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner is apprehending arrest was lodged on 05.08.2026 by the informant namely Sri Ratul Rabha stating inter alia that the petitioner was staying as a tenant and was running a pharmacy in the said tenanted room owned by the informant. It is stated that the tenancy agreement was entered into with the husband of the petitioner by the informant on 03.01.2022 and that the husband of the petitioner expired later and thereafter the petitioner had been running the pharmacy in the said tenanted premises. It was further stated that after the death of the husband of the petitioner, no new tenancy agreement was entered into by the owner i.e. the informant with the petitioner. The informant further stated that the petitioner had instituted a title suit for her tenancy rights before Civil Court and that in the said suit, the petitioner had submitted a tenancy agreement stated to be notarized on 13.03.2024. The informant stated that he had never entered into an agreement with the petitioner after the death of the husband of the petitioner and that the agreement placed by the petitioner before the Civil Court was a fake document and his signatures were forged. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil case is pending between the petitioner and the informant and that the instant FIR was lodged after the said suit was filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that criminal action on the part of the petitioner is writ large in the FIR and as such he submits that no bail should be granted to the petitioner and the Case Diary would be necessary to look into the gamut of the case. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, more so, in view of the fact that any forgery if at all done will be Page No.# 3/3 looked into by the Court under Section 145 of CrPC, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the Arresting Authority under the following conditions: i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. ii)the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer thereafter as and when called for. iii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iv) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Arresting Authority. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant