O R D E R

08.08.2022 By filing this application under Section 438 of the CrPC, the petitioner, namely- Sri Dhrubajyoti Bordoloi has sought for pre-arrest bail, in the event of arrest, in connection with BI (EO) P.S. Case No.24/2020 under Sections 120B/420/406 of the IPC.

Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M.

Nirola, Advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State.

This is the second bail application after rejection of the earlier one by this Court on 28.04.2022.

I have also gone through the bail objection submitted by the Investigating Officer.

After hearing both sides and after going through all the documents annexed with the records, this Court has decided to give a relook at the entire subject.

Ms. Halima Khatun applied for a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the Central Bank of India. The guarantor for the loan was Monowar Ali. Halima Khatun created a collateral security by handing over land documents belonging to the present petitioner.

It has been submitted that the present petitioner had an agreement with Halima Khatun to sell the land and the present petitioner even received Rs.10 lakhs, as advance. Since Halima Khatun could not pay him the entire price of land, she applied for a loan. Thereafter, Halima Khatun became a defaulter because she could not pay the bank the installments. After that, in order to repay the bank loan and to pay the total value of the land to the petitioner, said Halima Khatun sold the land. Even after that Halima Khatun did not repay the loan to the Bank nor she paid the remaining price of the land to the present petitioner.

The Bank has filed Title Suit No.269/2021 for cancellation of the said sale deed executed by Halima Khatun and also lodged the present FIR.

Mr. Saikia submits that the only act committed by the present petitioners is that he gave a power of attorney to Halima Khatun to sell the land and it was done with a bona fide intention so that Halima Khatun becomes successful in repaying the loan and also helped her to pay him the remaining price of the land.

Under the given circumstances, today, this Court has decided to have a different opinion other than the one that was expressed on

28.04.2022.

This Court is of the opinion that the present petitioner Sri Dhrubajyoti Bordoloi does not deserve to be detained in the custody for the allegation brought against him.

Therefore, his pre-arrest bail application is allowed. The interim bail granted by this Court to the petitioner on 29.06.2022 is hereby made absolute subject to the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case as and when called for.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant