Page No.# 1/9 vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation
2025 Latest Caselaw 8969 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 28 November, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010258552025




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:16322

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : AB/2766/2025

            AMIT JAIN
            SON OF SHRI ASOK KUMAR JAIN, RESIDENT OF 23, SAHID SURYA SEN
            ROAD, BERHAMPORE, POST OFFICE- BERHAMPORE, SUB-DISTRICT
            BERHAMPORE, DISTRICT-MURSHIDABAD, WEST BENGAL PIN-742101



            VERSUS

            THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
            THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
            INVESTIGATION



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, U BHARADWAJ,MS A DAS,MR A
ATREYA,MR. T DEURI

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, MS. N CHOUDHURY,MS. M KUMARI, RC, CBI




                                    BEFORE
                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

                                         ORDER

Date : 28.11.2025

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Mukari, learned Page No.# 2/9

Retainer counsel, CBI.

2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Amit Jain, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with RC- 12(A)/2025- GWH arising out of FIR No.RC0172025A0012 registered in CBI, ACB P.S., Guwahati under Section 61 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The facts as alleged in the FIR dated 14.10.2025 are, inter alia, that the informant who was identified as a source had lodged the FIR alleging that M/s. Mohan Lal Jain, a partnership firm having it's office in Kolkata, West Bengal was awarded with the contract of 4-laning of National Highway-37, between Demow to End of Moran Bypass, in Dibrugarh District in the State of Assam on EPC mode, besides other contracts under PMU, Dibrugarh scheduled to be completed in July, 2024; that the firm could not complete the construction in timely manner and therefore, applied for grant of Extension of Time (for short, 'EoT') and issuance of Completion Certification for the said project; that, Shri Binod Kumar Jain, a representative of the aforesaid firm, informed the co-accused Shri Maisnam Riten Kumar Singh, ED & RO, NHIDCL, Guwahati on 17.09.2025 that since his firm has already completed the Emergency Landing Facility (for short, 'ELF') in Dibrugarh and also submitted their request for grant of EOT as well as for issuance of the Completion Certificate, and in this context, he wanted to meet the aforesaid official that on 10.10.2025, the said Binod Jain conveyed to one Amit Jain (petitioner herein), a partner of M/s Mohan Lal Jain that they were required to visit the aforesaid official at Guwahati either Page No.# 3/9

on 13.10.2025 or 14.10.2025; that the aforesaid Amit Jain conveyed to Binod Jain that they would have to deliver a total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) as demanded by the aforesaid official; that Binod Jain conveyed to Amit Jain that he would be reaching Guwahati on 14.10.2025 to meet the official at his office; that there was every likelihood that the demanded bribe of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) would be delivered by the Binod Jain to the official on 14.10.2025 at NHIDCL, Regional Office, Guwahati for favourable issuance of EOT and the Completion Certificate.

4. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, CBI, ACB, Guwahati registered the FIR on the same date as RC0172025A0012 under Section 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 7/8/9/10/12 of the PC Act, 1988. The case No. RC0172025A0012 was renumbered as Case No. R12(A)/2025- GWH in the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati.

5. After receipt of the FIR, CBI prepared the Pre-Trap Memorandum (for short, 'PTM') on the same day i.e. 14.10.2025, wherein, name of particulars of 2 (two) independent witnesses as well as name of particulars of CBI officials were provided. The PTM reveals that one Shri Abhimanyu Kumar, PI and Trap Laying Officer (for short, 'TLO') led the CBI team for the trap. The PTM while detailing the factual background behind the trap, mentioned that there was every likelihood of a bribe of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) would be delivered by Binod Jain to the official on 14.10.2025 for favourable issuance of the EoT and the Completion Certificate. Accordingly, a plan was made to lay the trap to catch the accused persons, namely, Sri Maishram Riten Kumar Singh and Shri Binod Page No.# 4/9

Kumar Jain on the spot while demanding and accepting and handing over of the undue advantages respectively. After the alleged trap, the CBI team prepared the Memorandum of Recovery and Seizure on the same date, i.e., 14-10-2025 at about 10.30 AM onwards which revealed that the CBI team reached Bharalu View Apartment, Santipur, Guwahati at around 10.30 AM. From there, the team followed a Maruti Ertiga Car to the office of the NHIDCL, Guwahati situated at GNB Road, opposite AGP Office, Ambari, Guwahati. At around 10:40 AM, one of the two persons, who rode the aforesaid vehicle, got down of the Car and he proceeded towards the NHIDCL Office. It was stated that the source confirmed that the person who alighted from the above mentioned car was Shri Binod Kumar Jain who entered the NHIDCL office to deliver the undue advantage amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) to the official. It was stated that at around 11.35 AM, the source informed CBI that Binod Jain had delivered the undue advantage to the official. On receipt of the information, all the team members of CBI including the independent witnesses, rushed inside the office of the official and on reaching the office of the official, it was alleged that the middle aged person who had alighted from the Car was seen coming out of the chamber. When the CBI team intercepted the him, he introduced himself as Binod Kumar Jain and on being challenged that he had handed over the bribe amount to the official, he became perplexed and did not utter any word. The Memorandum also provided that on being asked about the delivery of illegal gratification amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) to the official, the said Binod Jain/co-accused confessed the same and begged for pardon and said that the said amount was lying in the chamber of the official. It was also mentioned that he stated that the Page No.# 5/9

money was given to the official for issuance of the Completion Certificate and Extension of Time for the contract. Thereafter, the CBI team challenged the official and the official too became perplexed and begged for pardon and the official stated that he did not demand the amount from the accused applicant and the amount was given to him and he had just accepted the same. On search of the drawer of his office, they recovered a black colour carry bag containing 20 bundles of G.C. notes of Rs.500/- each denomination totaling to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) and the same was seized by the CBI team. It was mentioned that later on, the official admitted that he had taken the bribe in lieu of issuance of the Completion Certificate and the EoT to Shri Binod Kumar Jain.

6. Drawing attention to order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in BA No. 3469/2025, the learned Senior counsel submits that the said co-accused namely, Binod Kumar Jain belonging to the same company as the present petitioner, was arrested on 14.10.2025 and he was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2025 passed in BA No. 3469/2025.

7. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the petitioner is willing to render full cooperation to the investigation though, he contends about his innocence and non-involvement in any offences as alleged. It is submitted that perhaps the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, especially as all the documents have already been seized after completion of the alleged trap procedure.

8. In this regard, the learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the pre-trap memorandum and the post-trap memorandum. It Page No.# 6/9

is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that there are no materials to implicate the present petitioner about involvement in any criminal conspiracy as alleged by the CBI. The learned Senior counsel submits that there is no law which prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail with regard to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter the PC Act) and contends that the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, obviously.

9. On the other hand, Ms. M. Kumari, the learned Retainer counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the CBI that the custodial examination of the petitioner is very much necessary for effective investigation; that, important evidence remains to be collected for which examination of the petitioner is essential. It is submitted that the petitioner has been evading the process of law as his house has been found locked and his mobile also switched off. It is submitted that the petitioner may be required to be confronted with intercepted evidence and other digital evidence for which the investigation would be prejudiced in the event of his getting anticipatory bail.

10. It may be mentioned that the CBI has filed a written objection supported by affidavit opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The learned Retainer counsel supports the said written objection filed against the prayer of the petitioner side for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The learned Retainer counsel has referred to several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of her contentious, being

- The Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda, reported in Special Page No.# 7/9

Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13956 of 2023; P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2019 (9) SCC 24; Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Arn. reported in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023; Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & Anr., reported in AIR 2021 SC 2011; Nikita Jaggannath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 0 INSC 878; Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320.

11. Upon perusing the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, perhaps the following principles relevant to the instant case can be culled out - (i) the power of granting anticipatory bail stands on a different footing from that of regular bail and though the principle of bail 'is rule' is applied in the case of regular bail, the same principle may not be automatically applicable in case of anticipatory bail; (ii) the custodial examination has its own significance in the matter of investigation and though it should not be resorted to as a matter of course, but wherever, it is deemed essential for the investigation, such a process of custodial examination within the ambit of law can elicit a lot of information and evidence for the investigation; (iii) in certain situations, examination of an accused under a cover of anticipatory bail may not be so effective from the point of gathering information and evidence during the investigation; (iv) with regard to serious offences and financial crimes, the threshold for granting anticipatory bail would be higher.

12. I have perused the relevant materials on record, given my anxious considerations to the rival submissions on both the sides, and also studied the relevant case laws. The co-accused was granted regular bail, which stands on a different footing from anticipatory bail, as is well settled position of law.

Page No.# 8/9

13. Moreover, while granting regular bail to the co-accused, Binod Kumar Jain, this Court also referred to some health issues of the said accused in para 17 and that was also one of the factors taken into account for granting the bail. The present adjudication is regarding pre-arrest bail.

14. The case diary has been placed before this court and I have perused the relevant portions there.

15. Upon perusing the case diary, I find that the CBI has mentioned inter alia four specific grounds/reasons, as to why the petitioner is required to be custodially examined. The CBI is also looking into the aspect of involvement of the petitioner in conspiracy to pay bribes to the officials of the Highway Infrastructure Corporation to secure benefits.

16. The present petitioner is the partner of the firm which has been awarded contract for the concerned construction work and as revealed by the statement of the co-accused Binod Kumar Jain, the said firm was started by the petitioner's grandfather in Kolkata. It is also revealed from the statement of co-accused Binod Kumar Jain - who is also a power of attorney holder on behalf of the present petitioner - that it is a usual practice on part of the firm(s) to pay 1% of the bill amount as bribes to the highway infrastructure officials, to secure benefits.

17. The general principles pertaining to anticipatory bail and its applicability with regard to financial offenses have already been noticed - emanating from the case laws relied upon by the CBI counsel. At this stage, despite the case having a significant component of a trap procedure, the case diary indicates that investigation still appears to be in active phase, to Page No.# 9/9

gather evidence regarding other aspects such as conspiracy, linkages etc.

18. In the entire facts and circumstances and keeping in mind the principles of law applicable - I come to the considered opinion that granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage, as sought for, might amount to putting unnecessary fetters on the investigation and that the same might prejudice the interest of effective investigation into the alleged offenses, including offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, I find the petition to be devoid of merits, which accordingly stands dismissed/rejected at this stage.

19. Return back the case diary.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant