AB 2631/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. SARMA Heard Mr. BR Dey, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. BS Sinha, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. Perused the case diary. This is an application filed by the petitioners, under Section 438 CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with BI(EO) Case No. 26/10 u/s 120(B)/420 IPC r/w 3/4 of Prinze Chit s and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978. The allegation brought against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in the name and style of ’Jeevan Suraksha Real Estate Ltd.’ have been running a non-banking financial company by collecting money at the rate of Rs.5/- to Rs.50 0/- on daily, monthly, half-yearly and yearly basis from the general public with promise to return the money with higher interest on maturity. Mr. BR Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitio ners have been running the business of Real Estate and for this purpose, no perm ission from the Reserve Bank of India or any other authority, is necessary. Mr. Dey also refers to the letter, dated 2.11.2010, written to the Director of the p etitioners’ company by the Asstt. General Manager, Reserve Bank of India. In th e said letter, which was written with reference to petitioners’ letter dated 23. 10.2010, it was advised to the petitioners’ company that there is no requirement of registration for the existing business activity relating to Real Estate. But the allegation made in the FIR is that the petitioners were engaged in collecting money from the general public with the promise to pay higher inter est on its maturity value. There is nothing on record to show that the petition ers have been permitted by the Reserve Bank of India or any other authority for collecting money with the promise to refund with higher interest on maturity. Mr. BS Sinha, learned Addl. PP, refuting the said arguments, as advanced by Mr.Dey, submits that the petitioners have been running financial business wi thout permission from the Reserve Bank of India and that there are sufficient ma terials against them. In view of above, considering the entire aspect of the matter and the na ture of allegation, brought against the petitioners, I do not find it to be a fi t case to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Consequently, the prayer for bail stands rejected. Return the case diar y.