AB 2969/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Matin, for the p etitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. Assam for the State re spondent. The petitioner herein is an Ex. Block Development President of G obardhana Development Block, North Barpeta Road, district Barpeta. He apprehendi ng arrest in connection with Barpeta Raod P.S. Case No. 84/2011 approached this Court by filing this petition u/s 438 CrPC to provide the privilege of pre-arres t bail. The case as aforesaid came to be registered on lodgment of an FIR by one Muzammil Hussain on 27.6.11, the Block Development President, Gobardhana Develo pment Block, North Barpeta Road, wherein it has been alleged that his office had been ransacked by more than two thousand unruly mob causing damage to the prope rties around 2 lakhs. In the FIR it is also indicated that the petitioner alongw ith Abul Baten, Khalilur Rahman and the Bank Manager of the Union Bank of India are responsible for delaying payment of the job card holders. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned sr. counsel for the petitioner that on the day as indic ated above in the First Information Report, the petitioner had neither gone to t he office of the Block Development Officer, Gobardhana Development Block, North Barpeta Road nor had committed any mischief to the properties belonging to the B lock Development Office. It is also submitted by him that the facts appearing in the face of the records, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would no t be necessary for the purpose of investigation. In reply to the submission advanced by Mr. Choudhury, learned sr. cou nsel, Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent taking assista nce of the materials available in the case diary, submits that the petitioner he rein and 3 others led the mob to the Block Development Officer demanding payment of the job card holders. The mob which gathered there became unruly and caused damaged to the properties of the office. In view of the materials, Mr. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. prays to thi s Court not to provide the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. This Court dealing with the application on 19.9.2011 provided interim bail to the petitioner. Taking note of the materials available in the case diary, this Court finds no ground to provide pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. However, in order to facilitate the petitioner to obtain bail from the court below, the interim bail provided to him vide order dated 19.9.11 is furt her extended till 21st November, 2011, during which time, the petitioner shall a pproach the court below for regular bail. With this order, this petition stands disposed of.