GUWAHATI, India, Aug. 6 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on July 10:

1. Heard Mr. T. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Kalyani Roy, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No. 320/2024 under Sections 303(2)/318(4) of BNS.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 23.10.2024 one Shri Anandi Thakur had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of the Panbazar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner's husband has defrauded him by falsely promising him to sale his car at a consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

4. It is stated in the FIR that the informant had paid Rs.1,00,000/- via Google pay to the petitioner's husband, however, when the informant went to meet the petitioner's husband on 23.10.2024 at CJM Court premises and paid an additional amount of Rs. 2.5 lakh. Neither the money was returned back and nor the car was handed over and the petitioner left the place duping the informant.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and she is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. He also submits that the husband of the present petitioner, who is a named accused in the FIR, has already been granted absolute anticipatory bail by this Court in AB Case No. 3167/2024 on 05.06.2025.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though no notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS has been issued to the petitioner, however, the police of Panbazar Police Station has been visiting the residence of the petitioner on more than two occasions and has asked the petitioner to appear before the police station. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she apprehends that if she appears before the police, she might be arrested, though no notice under section 35(3) of BNSS has been issued to her.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that that after release of the petitioner's husband on anticipatory bail, during further investigation, materials were found under Section 111(2) of BNSS andaccordingly said Section was added in pursuant to the order dated 20.06.2025 of the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. He submits that there may be incriminating materials against the petitioner which may be revealed only after perusal of the case diary, hence, prays for calling of the case diary.

9. Call for the case diary.

10. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and the named accused who is her husband has already been granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of Panbazar P.S. Case No. 320/2024 within a period of 7(seven) days from the date of this other and co-operate in the investigation. If she does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of her arrest, in connection with the above mentioned case, she shall be allowed to go on interim bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer;

(ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation;

11. List this matter again on 28.07.2025 for case diary.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.