AB 411/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. AT Sarkar, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr B B Gogoi, learned Addl PP. In the FIR dated 17-10-2010 lodged by one Md Zakir Hussain it is alleged that th e accused petitioner along with one Gella entered into the house of the informan t on 17-10-2010 at about 10.45 PM and they took away a cash amount of Rs.10,000/ - along with one golden chain by showing sharp knife, dagger etc. They also outr aged the modesty of informant’s wife. I have perused the case diary as produced by the learned Addl PP. As per the cas e diary the present accused petitioner was identified by the informant and his w ife. It has been fairly admitted by the accused petitioner that he visited the h ouse of the informant on the date of occurrence but he denies the commission of the offence. In paragraphs- 5 and 6 it is stated that the accused petitioner is running a tea stall and he had some dues from the informant and he visited the i nformant’s house to collect the dues. It is also stated that the accused petitio ner is a close door neighbour and there is no chance of committing offence like outraging the modesty of informant’s wife and snatching away the cash amount and golden chain etc. From the case diary it is also revealed that the cash amount and the properties taken away by the accused have not been recovered and no physical harm has been caused to the informant and his wife. In view of the above, the interim order passed on 23-12-2010 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions. However, the accused petitioner shall appear bef ore the I.O. concerned within seven days from today for recording his statement in accordance with law. Bail petition stands disposed of.