AB 3251/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BD AGARWAL Both the bail applications are disposed of by this common order since the case a rises out of the same police station. Bail application No. 3272/11 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused/petitioner, Jalal Uddin Laskar, praying for bail, apprehen ding his arrest, in connection with Hailakandi PS Case No. 421(GR Case No. 981/1 1) u/s 120(B)/420/406/34 IPC. Bail application No. 3251/11 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused/petitioner, Rahima Begum Laskar, praying for bail apprehen ding her arrest in connection with Hailakandi PS Case No. 421/11 u/s 120(B)/420/ 406/34. Heard Mr. IA Hazarika and MH Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl. PP, Assam. Perused the case diary. The informant’s case is that the petitioners have duped several investors by way of mis-appropriating large amount of money. In AB No. 3251/11, the petitioner’s case is that she was inducted in Win India Construction & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. company by the Chairman and Directors of the company but she w as not directly involved in the affairs of the company. The petitioner’s case is that she resigned from the company long back and the copy of the Board’s resolu tion dated 28.3.2010 has been annexed with the bail application. Although the Board’s resolution is not acceptable in evidence si nce the same has not been forwarded in the office of the Registrar of Companies, the statement of the learned counsel that the petitioner resigned from the post of Director long back is accepted only for limited purpose. Accordingly, the bail prayer of Rahima Begum Laskar is accepted . Accordingly, the arresting authority is directed to release Rahi ma Begum Laskar on bail, in the event of her arrest, in connection with the afor esaid PS case on furnishing bail bond of ‘ 10,000/- with one local surety of th e like amount to his satisfaction. The petitioner, Rahima Begum Laskar, is directed to appear befor e the IO within ten days and shall co-operate with the investigation. With regard to the case of Jalal Uddin Laskar, learned Addl. PP submitted that he is the Director of the aforesaid company and directly involve d in the collection of subscription from the public. Hence, the bail prayer of J alal Uddin Laskar is rejected.