Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010080242025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/893/2025 SHRI NAVIN CHAMARIA S/O-LT. SITARAM CHAMARIA,R/O-ASHIRWAD BUILDING,COLLEGE ROAD, OPPOSITE SANI MANDIR,SILCHAR,DIST-CACHAR,ASSAM-788004 VERSUS THE STATE, THROUGH CBI REP. BY THE RETAINER COUNSEL,(CBI). Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. G AGARWAL, Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 20.08.2025 Heard Mr. G. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Retainer counsel for CBI. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Navin Chamaria, has prayed for Page No.# 2/3 granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with CBI ACB Guwahati Case No. RC 0172025 A0003, registered under Section 61(2) of BNS and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as Amended in 2018). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is not named in the FIR lodged by CBI and pursuant to grant of interim protection vide order dated 11.04.2025, he has appeared before the investigating officer of CBI and his statement has already been recorded. It is further submitted that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and therefore, the interim bail granted earlier may be made absolute. 4. The gist of the allegation in the FIR leading to registration of the case is that one Mrinmoy Ghosh, Senior Auditor, in the office of Controller of Deffence Accounts, Narengi, Guwahati regularly used to indulge demanding and accepting bribe from private vendors and contractors for passing their bills. In this regard the names of some persons and other concerned have been mentioned. It is also alleged that Mrinmoy Ghosh was habitually demanding and accepting such undue advantage which constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). The three persons named are Shri Mrinmoy Ghosh (ii) Smt. Sabita Chamaria (iii) Shri Bikash Sarkar and also some unknown persons. They were alleged to have entered into conspiracy for undue gain which constitute offences under the Act. 5. I have also heard Ms. M. Kumar, learned Retainer counsel for the CBI, who submits that case diary has been received and placed before this Court. On the basis of the case diary, the learned Retainer counsel submits that investigation has progressed and the same is proceeding towards submission of charge Page No.# 3/3 sheet. It is also submitted that the statement of the accused revealed about his involvement in its activities. Needlessly to say that the said statement would not be admissible for attribution of guilt. 6. I have perused the interrogation report of the present petitioner in question and answer format. The learned Retainer counsel, CBI has drawn my attention to transcriptions of telephonic conversation which prima facie are implicating in nature and lend support to the involvement of various persons named in the FIR as well as others including the present petitioner with regard to the allegation about being involved in facilitating bribe transactions with the Office of the Controller of Defence Accounts. 7. In the given facts and circumstances, considering the nature of the alleged offences (corruption/financial crime) and the materials revealed, it would be prudent not to impose any fetter or restriction on the remaining investigation which should proceed as per law and taken to the legal conclusion, to find truth of the matter. In the facts and circumstances and materials available so far, I am of the considered opinion that this is not an appropriate case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, bail application stands rejected at this stage. The interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11.04.2025 is hereby stands vacated. 8. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant