AB 10/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.N.SARMA Heard Mr HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr K.Mun ir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. By this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have praye d for releasing them on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Dhe kiajuli PS Case No.327/2010 under Sections 420/506/34 IPC.. The allegation levelled against the petitioners inter alia is that, the petitioner No.1 came to the complainant’s house pretending to be an expert ’Kabi raj’ and promised to cure the parents of the complainant. The petitioner No.1 al so called the complainant to his house on the same day and showed him some bundl es of Rs.500/- which contained Rs.20,00,000/-and to get this amount through Moth er ’Kali , for which he demanded Rs.5,00,000/-from the complainant to satisfy M other ’Kali for offering ’Bhog’ etc. For the purpose, the petitioner No.2 and o ther accused took Rs.1,42,000/-, gold ornaments and other valuables from the inf ormant and defrauded him. When the fraud played by the petitioners came to lig ht , a public meeting was held wherein though the petitioners admitted their gui lt, but threatened the people present in the meeting with dao, lathi, sword ,dag ger etc. and came out of the public meeting. The aforesaid facts, in my considered opinion , do not justify the prote ction to be provided under Section 438 Cr.P.C, to the petitioners. It is submitted by Mr Choudhury that the petitioner No.1 is an elected m ember of Natun Panbari Village Development Council and the allegation made agai nst the petitioners is only on political rivalry. The facts stated in the FIR, m ore particularly holding of a public meeting has not been denied by the petitio ners in this application although it is asserted that a public meeting was held wherein the petitioner No.1 admitted his guilt. It is not the duty of an elected member of a Village Development Council to indulge in such activities. In such a situation, I do not consider it to be a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C and accordin gly on the face of the allegation, the bail application is rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned CJM, Sonitpur, Tezp ur and apply for regular bail. In the event of filing such an application, the l earned CJM shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders that may be justi fied in law and on facts. The bail application is dispose of.