ORDER

05.08.2022 Date :

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No. 1939/2020 under sections 406/408/420/409 of the I.P.C., the petitioner has filed this second application under section 438 Cr.P.C., praying for pre-arrest bail. The previous application was rejected vide order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in A.B. 1163/2022.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the previous application was mechanically rejected without appreciating the materials available on the record. It was also submitted that the I.O. of the case has mechanically and perfunctorily investigated the matter and has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not at all involved in the commission of any offence. It is submitted that the police is falsely alleging commission of fraud by the petitioner, whereas the ground reality is that the petitioner is a bona fide student who has pursued his four year B. Pharm and two year M. Pharm course and had acquired B. Pharm degree from Swami Vivekanand University, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh in final examination held in the month of June, 2016 and he had acquired M. Pharm degree from Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University, Bhopal in the examinations held in the month of February, 2021. Hence, it was submitted that the petitioner was entitled to minority scholarship for six years, for which no offence was committed. It was further submitted that none of the educational certificates of the petitioner was found to be forged or false. Accordingly, it was submitted that because of perfunctory and biased investigation by the I.O., the petitioner cannot be deprived of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to remain free from fetters by deprivation of personal liberty. It was also submitted that no one has complained about misappropriation of their money. It was also submitted that as the informant was not the aggrieved person, he had no locus standi to lodge an FIR. Thus, it was submitted that the second bail application was maintainable and it was not required for the petitioner to demonstrate changed circumstances after the previous prayer for pre-arrest bail was rejected. No other submission was made.

4. The learned Addl. PP has produced the voluminous case diary in several volumes and has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

5. Perused the case diary. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. As regards the first submission that the previous application was mechanically rejected without appreciating the materials available on the record, the Court is of the considered opinion that the Court is not hearing an appeal against the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in A.B. 1163/2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to demonstrate from the pleadings as to what material was omitted to be considered by this Court in the order dated 13.06.2022. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not demonstrated that the order dated 13.06.2022 was per incuriam. Therefore, the coordinate Bench of equal strength has no power to revisit the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by this Court in A.B.

1163/2022. Thus, the said submission is without any merit and is repelled.

7. The submissions that the investigation was perfunctory and mechanically investigated the matter and has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not at all involved in the commission of any offence is now examined. In this regard, the Court is of the considered opinion that this is merely a pre-arrest bail application, and not a challenge to the investigation, as such this Court would refrain from making any enquiry as regards whether the investigation carried out was proper or not by appreciating the material unearthed in course of investigation. Non