AB 1844/2011 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BD AGARWAL The BA No.1841/11 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused/petiti oners namely, Sri Arup Rajkonwar, Sri Rajib Rajkonwar and Sri Hemanta Saikia and BA No.1844/11 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused/petition er, namely Shri Udit Rajkonwar, praying for bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Simaluguri PS Case No.50/11 under Sections 447/353/386/387/506/3 23/365/34 IPC. Heard Mr. PK Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. BS Sinha, learned Addl. PP, Assam in both the bail applications. The allegation against the petitioners have that they have made illegal demand of money of Rs. 15.00 lacs for carrying out contract work and als o two helpers were kidnapped by the accused persons on 12.6.11 and later on re leased them with ransom demand. Mr. Das submitted that the petitioners have been engaged by the ONGC as their security guard. It is further the case of the petitioners that in the night of 11.6.11, they detained one truck carrying stolen articles of the ONGC and the same was handed over to the police and next day it was also intimat ed to the ONGC and as a counter blast, the present FIR has been lodged. It is tr ue that one identity card in the name of petitioner No.1 from the ONGC has been annexed with the bail application. However, in the said identity card it has not been clarified as to what duty was assigned to the said petitioner. Other petit ioners have produced the authority letter of the petitioner No.1. Hence, the pet itioners No.2 and 3 cannot be said to be the employee of ONGC. The seal affixed in the authority letter of petitioners No.2 and 3 shows that the petitioner No.1 is also a contractor and not an employee of the ONGC. Be that as it may, the case diary does not support the petitione rs’ version that no truck was detained carrying stolen goods. No police FIR and G.D. entry is available in the case diary. On the other hand, the employees of t he informant company has re-iterated that various kinds of threats have been g iven to them for non-fulfillment of their demand. Hence, it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to th e petitioners in both the bail applications. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioners in both the bail ap plications to surrender before the learned CJM, Sivasagar praying for regular ba il.