AB 3500/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY Heard Mr.B K Mahajan, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner and Mr. B.S.Sin ha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. P K Tiwari, learned counsel a ppearing for the informant. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor produced the cas e diary. I have carefully gone through the same. Mr.Tiwari, learned counsel, strongly opposing the petition for bail submits tha t there are sufficient materials against the accused petitioner inasmuch as he h as been implicated by the witnesses examined by the I.O., whose statements have been recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. One Prem Bahadur Singh lodged an FIR on 12.10.2011 with the Sr. Superintendent o f police, Kamrup, (M)Guwahati alleging that on 8.10.2011 at around 12.30 pm, w hile he was taking lunch at Dona Planate at G.S.Road,Guwahati, one young lady came to him and introduced herself as Esha to him. After sitting sometime sai d Esha asked him to drop her near Down Town Hospital and when they reached ne ar the said hospital, the said lady requested him to visit her house on the pr etext of introducing him with her parents. After entering her house he found no ne in the house and while he was sitting suddenly three persons entered into h er room who introduced themselves as CBI officers and told him that he was doi ng something wrong with Esha. They demanded Rs.10 lacs from the informant alleg ing that he brought the girl there for some illegal purpose.They took an amount of Rs.5 lacs from the informant and released him. They also snatched away the g old chain, gold ring etc. from the informant. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR the Dispur Police Station case No.2116/11 was registered u/s 120(B)/342/384 IPC . It is very interesting to note that the said lady Esha Sarma and her husband Br ij Mohan Sarma were arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 27.10.11 a nd they were produced before the court. The I.O., during investigation recorded the statement of Esha Sarma and her husband. From their statements it appears th at they do not live together. Both husband and wife live in separate houses. It is also revealed that Brij Mohan Sarma does not know what his wife has been doin g but he knew that she had gone astray for bad line and she had allowed his mo bile bearing SIM No.9706016555 to be used by one Ganesh Sarma, a friend of her w ife. In her statement Smti Esha Sarma also stated that she lives alone and allow ed the aforesaid Mobile Set to be used by Ganesh Sarma whom she met at Kuber Bar at Shoppers Point, 5(five) months ago. She also stated that said Ganesh Sarma introduced her with Ajay Singh and others at Kuber Bar. The investigation so far made reveals that the accused petitioner, the informant Prem Bahadur Singh, Brij Mohan Sarma, Ganesh Sarma and other persons who have b een indicted in the case are all businessmen, mostly coal supply business. They are strong competitors and they have business rivalry. Smti Esha Sarma, as i t appears from the case diary, was in league with Ganesh Sarma and his associate s who conspired against the informant and brought the informant to the house of Esha Sarma, where the informant was blackmailed and forced to pay ransom to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. The said Smti Esha Sarma in her statement disclosed that Gane sh, Ajay and Ali appeared and entered her room and got her out from her room. Wh at is surprising is that as per her own statement she voluntarily offered sex t o informant by removing her own clothes and at that time the aforesaid three pe rsons entered her room. The entire episode suggests dubious role of the aforesa id lady Smti Esha Sarma and it is difficult to believe that the aforesaid three persons including the accused petitioner Ajay Singh came and entered her room o n 8.10.11. The incident of offer of sex and forceful entry of the aforesaid thre e persons in her room took place at about 2 pm. From the statement of the victim woman it appears that the aforesaid persons including the accused petitioner Aj ay Singh were known to him since before but he has not stated that they were pr esent at the place of occurrence and committed the offence . It is most unlikel y that if the accused petitioner Ajay Singh and other persons were present at the time of occurrence, the informant would not mention their names. There is no evidence from other witnesses that the accused petitioner was seen at the place of occurrence or around the place of occurrence at the time of incident. It is expected that if the accused person was present at the place of occurrence alon g with his other friends, the same should have been mentioned in the FIR itself , because the informant suffered due to alleged torture committed on him by the perpetrators. I am not prepared to accept that merely because a lady, upon whom the husband has lost trust due to her dubious activities, has stated something against somebody should be treated as an evidence supporting the evidence of the victim himself. In my considered view it cannot be accepted as a strong incri minating material against the present accused petitioner for rejecting his pray er for anticipatory bail. In view of the above, the interim bail granted on 2.1 1.2011 by this court is made absolute on the same terms and conditions and also the condition laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. However, the accused pe titioner Sri Ajay Singh is directed to appear in person before the I.O. concerne d in connection with the aforesaid case for interrogation and recording his stat ement in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, AB stands disposed of.