AB 1950/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K MERUNO Heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BS Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. As directed by this Court, learned A ddl.P.P. has produced the case diary. The petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with BIEO P.S. Case No. 35 of 2010 under section 120(B)/420 of the IPC R/W Section 4/5/6/ of the Prize Chits a nd Money Circulation Schemes ( Banning ) Act. 1978. has moved this application f or granting her pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is a simple housewife and her hu sband is working as Junior Engineer in the District Rural Development Agency, Di phu. The apprehension of the petitioner of being arrested in the aforesaid case is that one Narayan Kakoti who is working as Junior Engineer in Cakamatha Develo pment Block under DRDA, Bishwanath Chariali came to the petitioner and imputed b aseless allegation against her and her husband on the ground that on their advic e, he had invested an amount of ‘ 5 lakhs in Unipay 2U Marketing Company Privat e Ltd.. He threatened the petitioner and her husband to pay back the money other wise she will be arrested. The apprehension was further fortified when the husba nd of the petitioner received telephone calls from the office of the BIEO Police Station and enquired whether her husband and his wife had compelled Narayan Kak oti to invest an amount of ‘ 5 lakhs to the said Unipay 2U Marketing Company Private Ltd and told them to return the said amount or else he and his wife will be arrested. Apprehending such arrest, the petitioner has fil ed this bail application. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she has never compelled the said Narayan Kakoti to invest any money in the Unipay 2U Marketing Company Private Ltd. and also that she has not hing to do with individual account holders of the said Company and hence, if she is arrested in connection with the aforesaid case, it will tarnish her image. I t is further submitted that the aforesaid case is being filed and the main culpr it involved in the said company have been named in the FIR as Pranab Jyoti Barma n and Keshab Kanti Sharma and others, wherein the petitioner’s name is not at al l mentioned and in such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to grant pre-ar rest bail to the petitioner. The Addl.P.P. has submitted from the case diary and the submissions of the learn ed Addl.P.P. which are taken from the statements recorded in the case diary, th is Court presumes are true to the statements as recorded therein. On perusal of the said case diary, certain portion of the case diary which are also written in English, this Court is of the concerned view that there is no incriminating evi dence collected by the Investigating Agency to remotely connect the petitioner t o the activities of the said company i.e. Unipay 2U Marketing Company Private Lt d and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be granted the privilege of pre-ar rest bail. In the result, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, namely, Ms. Mompi Saikia in the aforesaid BIEO P.S Case No. 35 of 2010 under se ction under section 120(B)/420 of the IPC R/W Section 4/5/6/ of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. 1978. the petitioner shall be relea sed on bail on such terms and conditions that may be imposed to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. With the above directions, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of .