AB 373/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K.MERUNO Heard Mr. A.M.Mazumdar, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. D. Borgohain,learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P for the State as well as Mr.N.S.Laskar, learned Counsel appearing for the informant Kamala Kanta Sarma. By this application U/S 438 Cr.P.C,the petitioners namely 1. A. Baba Peeshak Sin gha, 2.A.Rajen Singha, 3. N. Rajen Singha.4. N. Nimai Singha @ N.Lokendra Singha , 5. C.H. Peeshak Singha @ CH. Nirmal Singha, 6. N.Rajeswar Singha,7.N. Premkuma r Singha, 8. M. Meetai Nagamba 9. K.Tabung Singha and 10 M.Tonma Singha have pra yed for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Lala P.S. Case No. 348 of 2 010 under Section 436 IPC. Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl.P.P,Assam has produced the Case Diary. I have perus ed the Same. After hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of t he Case Diary, it transpires that an incident occurred on 5.11.10 at around 8.3 0 P.M. The petitioners have filed the FIR with regard to the said incident on 5. 11.10 which was registered as Lala P.S. Case No. 347/10.Thereafter, the informan t Kamala Kanta Singha has also filed an FIR registered as Lala P.S. Case No,. 34 8/10 U/S 436 IPC with regard to the said incident on 6.11.10. Both the FIRs are pertaining to the same incident filed by the O.Ps. against each other. In order to ascertain the correct picture, the same can be reveled from the investigation report of the police and would reveal from the Case Diary maintained by the pol ice with regard to the Lala P.S. Case No. 348/10 in which the petitioners are ap prehending arrest . It clearly reveals that the petitioners are prima-facie invo lved in the instant case whereby the property of the informant in Lala P.S. Cas e No. 348/10 has been severely damaged. From the Case Diary. it also reveals t hat the I.O. has assessed the damage to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. This Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties and on p erusal of the Case Diary, is of the considered view that the petitioners are dee ply involved in the instant case that took place on 5.11.2010 as per the Lala P .S. Case No. 348/10 and in this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Consequently, this bail application stands rejected. Interim order granted on 21.12.10 shall stand vacated.