AB 2280/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondents. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the petitioner No. 2. Th e petitioner No. 2 is a holder of a license in respect of a fair price shop. On account of filing of an FIR by Arun Ghosh and Kanai Ghosh jointly and on the basis of the same, police station case having been registere d, both the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with that case, have filed this application under Section 438 CrPC to provide them the privilege of pre-arrest bail. In the First Information Report, it is alleged that ration cards b eing issued in the name of the petitioners, the same however, were not handed ov er to the first informants rather the petitioners have been misappropriating the food items under the said ration cards and when requested to hand over the same , the petitioners threatened the informants that they would be entangled in a cr iminal case. On the other hand, the petitioners herein also lodged an FIR with t he Officer- In-Charge of Nilambazar Police Station contending counter allegation s that the first informants Arun Ghosh and Kanai Ghosh demanded to provide them excess kerosene oil, to which the informant refused contending that such excess kerosene oil cannot be provided to them as per restrictions made in the ration c ard. From the allegations and counter allegations it would appear to this Co urt that the disputes in between the petitioners and the first informant cropped up on account of issue of ration cards - one alleging misappropriation of the f ood items while the other alleging demand of excess kerosene which cannot be pro vided as per restrictions made in the ration card. I have perused the materials available in the case diary, which however, do not substantially indicate about misappropriation of food items taking recourse to t he ration cards issued in the name of the first informants. Taking note of the materials and the facts available in the case records, this C ourt finds no impediment to provide pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the interim bail provided vide order dated 1.8.11 is m ade absolute. Bail application stands disposed of.