06.05.2025 Heard Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. F. K. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM's Vigilance, for the State respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested on o4.04.2025 in connection with Vigilance P. S. Case No.09/2025, registered under Sections 12 , 13(1) (b) , 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel, that the present accused/petitioner is a very meritorious student. After completing his B. Tech from the Indian Institute of Management, Mumbai, he joined Asian Paints and later went to the USA. However, as his mother was diagnosed with cancer and his father also suffered from a heart ailment, the petitioner, leaving his lucrative job, had to return to Assam with the intention of settling down permanently to care for his ailing parents. Thereafter, he appeared in the Assam Civil Services Examination, 2017, and was accordingly selected and appointed in 2019. At the relevant time of the incident, he was posted as Circle Officer, Bajali. He also got married to a Hindu woman, and a male child was born from their wedlock. Subsequently, following an enquiry directed by the highest administrative authority, the Chief Minister's Special Vigilance Cell (SVC) filed an FIR against Page No.# 3/13 the petitioner on 03.04.2025 and arrested him in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9/2025. He was thereafter produced before the remanding Magistrate on 05.04.2025. He further submits that the petitioner was never served with a notice under Sections 41 and 41(a) of the Cr.P.C. [corresponding to Section 35(3) of the BNSS], which is a violation of the mandate of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar , reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner was remanded to police custody for three days, and after the expiry of the police remand period, he was produced before the learned remanding Magistrate and was thereafter sent to judicial custody. On 10.04.2025, a bail application was moved before the learned remanding Magistrate, but the same was rejected, and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody till 22.04.2025. Subsequently, he was further remanded to judicial custody till 06.05.2025.

6. Mr. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that from the forwarding report, it appears that the bank accounts of the petitioner, including those of his parents and wife, have been seized by the police. The case has been registered under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, and not under Section 13(1)(a) of the said Act. Thus, there is no likelihood of tampering with the bank accounts, and the transaction details have already been seized by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that in the name of investigation, the police also insisted that the petitioner's wife, who is living alone with their one-and-a-half-year-old child and elderly, ailing parents, come to the police station for questioning, disregarding her request to be interrogated at home. Moreover, the Investigating Officer did not seek further police remand of the petitioner, which indicates that the investigation is nearly complete, and Page No.# 4/13 his custodial interrogation is no longer necessary rather it violates the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. In support of his submissions, Mr. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions:

ii. Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in 2013 (&) SCC 466, wherein, also the Court observed that in a case of disproportionate assets case, the Court granted bail, noting that liberty of bail cannot be curtailed based on unsubstantiated financial allegations.

iii. B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in 2014 (13) SCC 55, wherein also, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the charges under PCA require concrete evidence of criminal misconduct, not mere financial transactions, to sustain a conviction or deny bail.

iv. P. Nallammal & Anr. vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 1999 (6) SCC 559, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that mens rea is essential for PCA offences, and mere possession of assets or transactions does not imply criminality.

v. P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2015 (10) SCC 152, wherein also, the Court emphasized that PCA charges require proof of corrupt intent, and routing financial dealings without evidence of misconduct are insufficient.

Page No.# 5/13 vi. Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. , reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the direction for investigation agencies and also the Courts in respect of Section 439 of Cr.P.C which have been violated in the instant case both by the IO and the remanding magistrate.

8. He further relied on another decision passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in W.P.(Crl) 20/2024 [Shri Gurmej Singh Batth vs. State of Nagaland & Ors.], wherein, also the said Bench has dealt with the inter play between Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Preventive detention order whereby the detention order was set aside by the said Court.

9. He further submitted that there is no evidence or proof against the petitioner indicating that he has acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income, as alleged in the FIR. Moreover, from the record, it appears that almost all the relevant documents, including the bank passbook and other documentary evidence, have already been collected by the Investigating Officer.

10. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) seized from the bank account of the petitioner's mother was deposited therein as compensation, as some of her paternal property was acquired by the Government. He also submits that all relevant documents, including bank account details, have already been seized by the police, and therefore, further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner, being a permanent resident of the locality, is willing to extend full cooperation in the ongoing investigation, if he is granted the privilege of bail. Further, keeping the petitioner in custody would serve no constructive purpose and would merely satisfy the sadistic pleasure of the investigating officer. Furthermore, as the case Page No.# 6/13 is entirely based on documentary evidence, and the IO has already seized or recovered all relevant documents, including the bank passbook, further detention of the petitioner is not required in the interest of the investigation. The petitioner is also ready to comply with all terms and conditions of bail, if granted the privilege thereof.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Dutta, learned Special Public Prosecutor, submits that prior to the lodging of the FIR, a preliminary enquiry was initiated with Government approval. During this enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was actively employed with INFOSYS despite having been appointed as a civil servant. This constitutes a clear violation of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, particularly the provisions concerning private trade or employment. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to disclose his income from INFOSYS in his income tax returns. After the FIR was lodged, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Investigating Officer (IO), which revealed that the petitioner was in possession of assets and property disproportionate to his known sources of income, with the percentage of disproportion calculated at 282.08%. The petitioner joined government service in 2019, and hence, the check period was considered from February 2019 to December 2024. After accounting for his income, expenditures, and other financial transactions, it was found that his assets were disproportionate by 282.08%. Furthermore, the offence under which the case has been registered carries a punishment of more than seven years, and therefore, the requirement of issuing a notice under Sections 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C. [corresponding to Section 35(3) of the BNSS] does not arise. The FIR contains a detailed statement of the petitioner's assets, income, and expenditures, prepared after a proper audit of official accounts.

12. He further submits that during interrogation, the accused/petitioner was Page No.# 7/13 unable to satisfactorily explain the source of his assets. It is an admitted fact that he has no other source of income except his government salary. Also, no amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was paid to the petitioner's mother as compensation for any ancestral property, as she had already been allotted other land. Hence, the claim of compensation does not arise. However, the mother's family members admitted to having received Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs as compensation for acquired land. Further, the investigation also revealed that a large sum of money had been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner's mother at Punjab National Bank, which was subsequently transferred to the petitioner's HDFC Bank account. Mr. Dutta submits that this finding is based on witness statements available in the case diary, contradicting the petitioner's claim regarding the Rs. 20 lakhs payment. He further states that several witnesses, in their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., have detailed how the petitioner accumulated assets through various transactions, including benami transactions. Moreover, serious allegations have emerged that the petitioner is still attempting to influence witnesses even from jail, and is trying to hamper and tamper with the ongoing investigation. These claims have been specifically stated by witnesses during their Section 161 Cr.P.C. depositions.

13. Mr. Dutta, learned Special Public Prosecutor, also submitted that the entire offence comes under the socio-economic offence and is constituted a class apart and hence, a different approach is needed while considering the bail application in such economic offences. He further submitted that such kind of offence will affect the entire society. He also submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pertaining to a decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Gurmej Singh Batth (supra)], is not applicable in the present case, as the said judgment was delivered in the context of a Page No.# 8/13 preventive detention matter. Accordingly, he submits that this is not a fit case for granting bail, as the investigation is still ongoing, and further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is necessary in the interest of justice.

14. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the case diary along with the annexures appended to the petition and the bail objection filed by the IO. It appears that there are serious allegations of corruption, and following a preliminary enquiry, an FIR was registered. The FIR contains detailed computations relating to the petitioner's assets, income, and expenditures. Upon audit of his financial records, it has been found that the petitioner possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, to the extent of 282.08%. Furthermore, during the preliminary enquiry, it came to light that the petitioner was also employed with INFOSYS at the relevant time, despite being a civil servant. From the materials available in the case diary, it is also noted that when the police visited the residence of the petitioner, a significant number of documents, including passbooks and bank records, were found discarded in an open field, from where some of them were recovered by the IO.

15. Further, the IO has reported that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. There are also allegations that the petitioner is attempting to influence witnesses even from jail premises. It further appears from the record that, apart from depositing funds into his own bank account, the petitioner has transferred money into the accounts of his mother, wife, and other relatives. Some properties are also alleged to have been acquired through benami transactions. While it is true that some documents have already been seized during the investigation, there remain several undisclosed aspects which, according to the IO, require further investigation. There is also a legitimate Page No.# 9/13 concern that, if released on bail, the petitioner may liquidate or dispose of assets that are yet to be recovered. Moreover, the IO has stated in the bail objection that the petitioner possesses technical expertise and is well- acquainted with the functioning of the e-Dharitri portal and related systems, increasing the risk of asset tampering.

16. In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement , reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Hon'ble Apex Court, on paragraph- 75, 78, 79, 80, 81 83, reads as under:

81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:-

83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail."

17. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the materials available in the case diary, and the specific objections raised by the IO, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is necessary for further investigation to disclosed uncovered facts. Accordingly, this is not a fit case for the grant of regular bail at this stage, and the bail petition is hereby rejected.

18. In view of above, this Bail application stands disposed of.

19. Case Diary be returned.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant