AB 1095/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. SAHA The instant application, under Section 438 CrPC, is filed by the petitioner, Sri Hitesh Ch. Talukdar for granting him bail in the event of his arrest in connect ion with Palasbari P.S. Case No.72/2011 under Section 420/294/306 IPC R/W Sectio n 67(A) of Information and Technology Act. Heard Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as we ll as Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P. who submits that though he tried his le vel best to produce the case diary relating to the aforesaid police case but he did not receive the same and in view of the above, he has nothing to submit exce pt to inform this Court that the petitioner is on interim bail since 11.5.2011. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner while urging for bail, as sought f or, has contended that on 29.4.2011, this Court directed the learned Addl. P.P. for producing case diary on 6.5.2011 and on that date, the learned Addl. P.P. fa iled to produce the case diary. Thus this Court fixed the matter again on 11.5.2 011 for production of the case diary and on that date also the prosecution faile d to produce the case diary. Ultimately on 11.5.2011, this Court granted interim bail to the petitioner of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the sat isfaction of the arresting authority and fixed the matter for further hearing on 30.5.2011 and on that date also the learned Addl. P.P. stated before this Court that some more time is necessary to produce the case diary. This Court again al lowed the prayer of the prosecution and fixed the matter on 10.6.2011 and on tha t date also the prosecution failed to produce the case diary. Thus, the matter w as again listed on 24.6.2011 for production of the case diary and on that date a lso the prosecution failed to produce the case diary. Again the matter was fixed on 1.7.2011 and on 1.7.2011 also the learned Addl. P.P. failed to produce the c ase diary and thus the matter is fixed today for production of the case diary bu t the prosecution without producing the case diary is asking for time, again and again, and at the same time the prosecution is curtailing the right of the citi zen as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. He finally contended that no n-production of the case diary itself shows that the State is not interested in the case. Thus, it would be proper for the Court to make absolute the interim or der passed by this Court earlier. Normally, this Court does not grant pre-arrest bail in a case where an offence u nder Section 306 IPC read with Section 67(A) of the Information and Technology A ct is concerned. But in the instant case, though this Court provided opportunity to the prosecution, the prosecution failed to produce the case diary and theref ore, this Court has no other alternative except to grant bail as sought for. It is to be mentioned here that not only in this case but in some other cases al so the State is not coming with the case diary on the date fixed and is praying for time, again and again. There is no doubt that State being custodian of life and property of the citizen and also has to maintain law and order and State bei ng machinery impersonal is entitled to get some latitude but that does not mean that it will not produce the case diary in a case where a justice seeker is ask ing for pre-arrest bail as he has a reasonable belief that he would be arrested in a police case. It is stated at the Bar that the Palasbari Police Station is adjacent to the cit y and does not require one hour journey from the city but then also the IO is of the case is not placing the case diary even after getting opportunity. Therefor e, this Court has no other alternative except to grant the bail as prayed for. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner Sri Hitesh Ch. Talukdar shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid P. S. Case on furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount t o the satisfaction of the arresting authority, on further condition that he shal l not leave the State of Assam without prior permission of the learned CJM, Kamr up, Guwahati and shall not tamper with the witnesses if any. With the aforesaid order, the bail application is allowed. Copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of A ssam for information.