Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010072462025 2025:GAU-AS:4929 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1054/2025 NEKIBUZ ZAMAN S/O GOLAM SHAH ZAMAN R/O COLLEGE ROAD, WARD NO. 15, COLLEGE NAGAR, BIDYAPARA, P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783301 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM,MR A RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 24.04.2025 Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 in connection with ACB P. S. Case No. 29/2025, registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The Case Diary, as called for, has already been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Munir that the present petitioner is a Junior Engineer, Fakiragram Municipal Board by profession. It is an admitted fact that when the father of the informant approached the petitioner for obtaining permission for renovation work of a commercial building, the petitioner charged an amount for the same. He further admits that, as per the statement made in the FIR, he demanded Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only), which included the cost of drawing and other expenses, from a registered firm, in order to obtain the necessary permission from the Municipal Board for the renovation of the commercial building. He further submitted that since it was a commercial property, the rate applicable was higher than that for a residential plot. Accordingly, in a rough estimate, the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner charged Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- including the property tax and Rs. 10,000/- for preparing the construction drawing etc. However, it is also a fact that the registered firm, which is operated by the petitioner’s wife, demanded Rs. 10,000/- for the said work. Due to some misunderstanding, the informant lodged an FIR. 5. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.03.2025, and the Investigating Officer (IO) got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him while in custody. Hence, further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner is still ready and willing to cooperate with the IO in the ongoing investigation, if he is granted the privilege of regular bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has raised an objection and submitted that the accused petitioner initially demanded Rs. 17,500/- (Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred) only, which was later reduced to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only. Being a Junior Engineer of the Municipal Board, he is not authorized to facilitate or undertake the process of obtaining permission on behalf of another person. He was accordingly trapped and caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only from the informant. He further submitted that the voice sample, i.e., the recorded conversation between the petitioner and the informant, has already been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination, and the report is yet to be collected by the IO. 7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the case diary. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner demanded Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only from the informant or the informant’s father for obtaining permission and for preparing the required Page No.# 4/4 drawings and other datas. However, considering the materials available in the case diary and other relevant aspects of the case particularly the period of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, i.e., 30 days, I am of the opinion that the IO got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused petitioner while in custody. Accordingly, further custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner does not appear to be necessary in the present case. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam, the accused/petitioner, namely, Nekibuz Zaman, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Assam, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant