Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/13 vs The State Of Assam on 6 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010083352025
2025:GAU-AS:5612
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1228/2025
TANBIR YUSUF AHMED
S/O-SALAH UDDIN AHMED,
R/O-JYOTI PRASAD AGARWALA PATH,P.S-HATIGAON,GUWAHATI-
781028,DIST-KAMRUP (M),ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K P PATHAK, F. K. AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SPECIAL PP, CM's VIGILANCE
Page No.# 2/13
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
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.08/2025, 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 NIT, Silchar, he joined the company called Infosys Ltd. 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, Dalgaon, Darrang District. While serving at Dalgaon, he
fell in love with a Hindu girl who was also serving as a Circle Officer at Sipajhar,
within the same district, and they eventually got married on 18.12.2024. Shortly
thereafter, in early January 2025, the highest executive authority of the State
Page No.# 3/13
expressed disapproval of such an inter-religious marriage between
administrative officers and ordered an inquiry against the petitioner and his
brother [accused/petitioner in Bail Application Case No.1227/2025].
Subsequently, following an enquiry directed by the highest administrative
authority, the Chief Minister's Special Vigilance Cell (SVC) filed an FIR against
the petitioner on 03.04.2025 and arrested him in connection with Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 8/2025. 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.
Upon the expiry of the initial remand period, he was produced before the
learned remanding Magistrate, and, upon a prayer made by the IO, a further
two days of police remand was granted. 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 IO. Moreover, the IO did not seek further police
Page No.# 4/13
remand of the petitioner, which indicates that the investigation is nearly
complete, and 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:
i. Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2018
(3) SCC 22, wherein the Court reiterated that bail should not be denied
mechanically, especially for accused with no history of absconding or tampering,
even in serious cases.
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
Page No.# 5/13
financial dealings without evidence of misconduct are insufficient.
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
Page No.# 6/13
the petitioner in custody would serve no constructive purpose and would merely
satisfy the sadistic pleasure of the investigating officer. Furthermore, as the case
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. After the FIR was lodged, a detailed enquiry was
conducted by the 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 197.12%. 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 197.12%. 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 IO recorded a
conversation between the accused/petitioner and his staff concerning his
involvement in collecting corruption money while serving at the Dalgaon
Revenue Circle. Also, the accused/petitioner was unable to satisfactorily explain
Page No.# 7/13
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 197.12%. Furthermore, during the
preliminary enquiry, it came to light that the petitioner has corrupted a huge
some of amount by engaging his staff. 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.
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:
"...74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation
intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in
which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of
material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may
hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between
the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating
agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and
to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant
information. In State v. Anil Sharma, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a
suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438
of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected
person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have been concealed.
Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows
that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during
the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition
would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to
third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument
Page No.# 10/13
can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to
presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a
responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring
offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
" 75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to
secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., it was held
as under:
"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation
intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be
questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation,
commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other
persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the
accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It
may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the
investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and
persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his
disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or
other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of
investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in
an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator
is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in
the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not
interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the
accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if
passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code
will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate,
Page No.# 11/13
be done under Section 438 of the Code.
Economic offences
78. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an extraordinary remedy,
has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences.
Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic
fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
(1998) 2 SCC 105, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is
not entitled to anticipatory bail.
79. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the "Scheduled
offence" and "offence of money laundering" are independent of each
other and PMLA being a special enactment applicable to the offence of
money laundering is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The
learned Solicitor General submitted that money laundering being an
economic offence committed with much planning and deliberate design
poses a serious threat to the nation's economy and financial integrity and
in order to unearth the laundering and trail of money, custodial
interrogation of the appellant is necessary.
80. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate
design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to
the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others
(1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under:-
"5. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders
who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder
may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused.
An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate
Page No.# 12/13
design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to
the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be
manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the
community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner
without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes
with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national
economy and national interest....."
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:-
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests
of the public/State and other similar considerations."
83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate
Page No.# 13/13
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
