AB 2164/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B.SAHA The instant application is filed by one Monimoy Deka under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for granting him pre-arrest bail in connection with Noonmani police station cas e No. 153 of 2011 under Sections 120(B), 406,420 IPC read with Sections 4,5,6 o f Prize Chits and Money Circulation ( Banning) Act, 1978. Hard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. S inha, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the respondent-State. Mr. Choudhury learned Counsel for the petitioner while urging for bail w ould contend that on earlier occasion, the petitioner filed a bail application a long with one Sanjoy Kr. Sarkar and the said bail application was rejected by on e of the coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.6.2011 in A.B 1455 of 2011 upon pe rusal of the case diary. But at that relevant time, the petitioner could not pla ce his case properly that he is an investor and neither an official nor an Agent of UNI PAY 2 U MARKETING PVT. LTD for which the bail application was rejected. On query of this Court, both the learned Counsel appearing for the insta nt bail application and other learned Members from the Bar submits that even if the bail application is rejected by one Hon’ble Judge and if such Judge is not i n the station, other judge can take up subsequent bail application. In view of the submission of the learned Counsel of the parties and the learned members of the Bar, the instant bail application is taken up by this Cou rt for disposal. Mr. Choudhury submits that specific allegation is against one Mihir Kuma r Biswas who is collecting money, not the petitioner. Mr. Choudhury, again submits before this Court that one Mahananda Dutta, one of the investor, filed one bail application being A.B. No. 1845 of 2011 and this Court on 24.6.2011 granted interim bail and subsequent thereto, the said o rder was made absolute. He further submits that so many investors by this time have been granted bail. Therefore, it would not be proper to reject the bail application only on the gro und that earlier his application for bail was rejected. He further submits that granting of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. The Court is to see whet her the petitioner who approaches for bail would ultimately face the trial when charge sheet is filed against him. Arrest of a person is normally required when his custodial interrogation is called for. In the instant case, the petitio ner is ready to appear even before the I.O of the case every week so that there may not be any doubt in the mind of the prosecution that the petitioner shall no t face the trial, the learned Counsel submits. Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P submits that almost all the Hon’ble J udges takes a stand for granting bail to the investors and rejecting the prayer for bail of the officials and the agents. Being the present petitioner is admitt edly an investor; he is not seriously objecting the prayer for bail but leaving the matter to the Court. Considering the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and other orders placed by Mr. Choudhury, wherein this Court granted bail, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where pre-arrest bail should be granted as the petitioner is an investor. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest in connection wi th the aforesaid P.S. case, the petitioner, Monimoy Deka, shall be released on b ail on his furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amoun t to the satisfaction of the arresting authority on further conditions that he s hall appear before the I.O of the case once in a week for next three months and shall not leave the State of Assam without prior permission of the learned CJM , Kamrup, Guwahati and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to d issuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. With the above order, the bail application is disposed of.