AB 890/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C. R. SARMA Heard Mr. R P Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner. Al so heard Mr. B S Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Perused the Case Diary. This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner, namely, Sri Ratneswar Deka in connection with Lanka C ID Case No.11/2011, registered under Sections 120B/448/419/384 IPC. Perused the Case Diary as well as the copy of the inquiry report submitted by th e DSP, CID, Assam, Guwahati available in the record. The allegation brought against the petitioner by the informant is that two perso ns claiming themselves as C.I.D officials visited his factory and illegally coll ected money from the informant. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petition er is working as A.S.I., Border Police at Mongoldai and that he is in no way inv olved in this offence. The informant lodged a complaint before the Inspector Gen eral of Police, Assam, Guwahati on 15.03.2011, which was registered as CID Bn.C/ No.11/2011 U/S 120(B)/448/419/384 IPC. On receipt of the said complaint enquiry was made by the DySP, CID, Assam, Guwahati and in his report the DySP, CID has s tated that the petitioner along with others were found to have visited the facto ries located at Ambari Fatashil area of Guwahati including the factory of M/s Ma dhu Products and that they collected money from the said factories. In the concl uding part of his report the DySP, C.I.D stated as follows: Under the above facts and circumstances, it is established that, Sri Anup Hazarika, DySP, Assam Police, posted as DySP Border, Kamrup, Assam with the ass ociation of Paramesh Barman, reportedly a police informer and Ratneshwar Deka, p reviousluy served as Const with BIEO and promoted to the rank of ASI of Police a nd presently posted at Mangaldoi Border Branch, illegally visited the aforesaid factor for their personal gain and thereby committed offence under the provision of law. Having heard the learned counsel of both the parties, considering the evidence s o far collected by the Investigating Officer, the report submitted by the DySP, CID, Assam and in the light of the gravity of the alleged offence, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail in favour of the p etitioner. Hence the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. Return the Case Diary. Bail application is disposed of.