AB 2952/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. SARMA Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard M r. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent State . Perused the C.D. This application has been filed u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in favour of the accused/petitioners, namely; Smti. Jaleswari Marak @ Jolis Ma rak, Sri Sidheswar Barman, Sri Checharam Rabha, Smti. Puibala Rabha and Smti. Di pika Rabha in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 61/2011 u/s. 419/420 IPC. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 submitted applications for allotment of fund for cons truction of houses under the IAY Scheme. The allegations made against the petiti oners are that the petitioners not being selected candidates, for allotment of f und under the scheme, collected A/c Payee Cheques for Rs. 25,000/- each. It is a lso alleged that two members of the Gaon Panchayat namely, Smti. Arabinda Roy an d Smti. Dipika Rabha, identified the said petitioners as original beneficiaries. From the record it ap pears that the payment in respect of the said cheques, collected by the petitio ners, was subsequently stopped. From the evidence collected by the I.O. as well as the statement made in the FIR, it appears that the said petitioners, who did not know anything about the procedure collected the cheques at the instance of Smti. Arabinda Roy and Smti. Dipika Rabha, petitioner No. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and considering entire aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that release of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 will not adversely affect the investigation. Accordingly the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 aforesai d is allowed. In view of the above, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petition ers Nos. 1 to 4, in connection with the above case, they shall be released on ba il of Rs. 10,000/- each with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfac tion of the arresting authority subject to condition that the petitioners shall appear before the I.O. as and when so required and they shall not interfere with the investigation in any manner. However, considering the nature of allegation and the materials collected by the I.O. I do not find it to be a fit case to ext end the benefit of pre-arrest bail in favour of Smti. Dipika Rabha. Hence, her p rayer for bail is rejected. With the above directions, this bail application is disposed of. Return the C.D .