AB 440/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. G.P.Bhowmik, learned counsel for the accused applicants. Also heard Mr . K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P., for the respondent State of Assam. The accused applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with Hojai P.S. Cas e No. 285/2010. CD, as called for, has been produced today. I have perused the same. It appears that there is a land dispute between the accused applicants and the i nformant. It also appears that an FIR was lodged by some of the accused applican ts against the informant and his party regarding the said land dispute. Due to l odging of the said FIR, the informant also lodged an FIR against the accused app licants. The accused applicant No. 7 Sri Babul Pandit @ Arabinda Adhikari, being a railwa y employee, accused applicant No. 10 Smti. Rina Pandit @ Dina, accused applicant No. 11 Smti. Malin Pandit @ Milin and accused applicant No. 12 Smti. Ratna Pand it, all being women and having children, have been granted interim bail by this court vide order dated 03.01.2011. In view of above, the interim bail order date d 03.01.2011, in respect of the accused applicants, abovementioned, is hereby ma de absolute, on the same terms and conditions as reflected in order dated 03.01. 2011. It is submitted that accused applicant No. 1 Sri Atish Debnath, accused applican t No. 9 Sri Atul Debnath, and accused applicant No. 14 Sri Anil Debnath @ Anil P andit, are elderly person of 62 years, 60 years and 62 years, respectively. Cons idering their advancing age, I direct that in the event of their arrest in conne ction with Hojai P.S. Case No. 285/2010, the accused applicants No. 1, 9 and 14, above named, shall be enlarged on bail on their execution of bail bond of Rs. 1 0,000/- each with one local surety each of like amount subject to satisfaction o f the arresting authority on condition that they shall appear before the I.O. co ncerned within 15 days from today and shall fully cooperate with the investigati ng agency and shall also appear before the I.O. concerned as and when required. However, considering the allegation that the police team who had been to the pla ce of occurrence i.e. to the accused applicants’ place, in connection with some police case, have been prevented from performing their duties and having been fo und some incriminating materials against the accused applicants No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 13, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to them and accordingly, their prayer for bail, is hereby rejected. With the above directions, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of .