Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010138632025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1456/2025 MRS ANANYA BORTHAKUR D/O BIMAL BORTHAKUR R/O MILAN NAGAR, TITABOR, P.S. TITABOR, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785630 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G Z AHMED, MR S A REEYAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 31.07.2025 Heard Mr. G.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.B. Dutta, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance Cell. 2. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 482 of the Page No.# 2/4 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the petitioner, namely, Mrs. Ananya Borthakur, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/2025 dated 15.05.2025 registered under Sections 120B/ 406/409/420/467/468/471 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The case was initiated based on an Ejahar dated 15.05.2025 with the allegation that there were gross anomalies in the recruitment of Assistant Tourism Information Officers in the period from 2010 to 2011. In the ejahar/FIR, 8(eight) numbers of persons have been named including the present petitioner, Mrs. Ananya Borthakur, who was one of the selected candidates. Apart from that, FIR also mentioning other unknown public servants and private persons. The aforesaid complaint was registered vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/2025. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted interim protection vide order dated 25.06.2025. Pursuant to grant of interim relief, petitioner has co-operated with investigation and her statement has also been recorded. It is also submitted that co-accused Ms. Saymeen Mannan, named in the FIR has also been granted pre-arrest bail by making absolute her interim protection. It is further submitted that the petitioner has served in the department as long as 14(fourteen) years and FIR has been filed after such a long time by a person whose bonafides and even identity are doubtful. The case diary, as called for, has been received along with objection from the investigation authority narrating some of the details revealed by the investigation and objecting to the grant of bail contending that the custodial examination of the accused/petitioner may be Page No.# 3/4 necessary considering the nature of the case and the materials revealed by the investigating authority. The case diary in two volumes reveals extensive investigation, till now. 5. I have heard Mr. P.B. Dutta, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor, CM Special Vigilance Cell. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also draw my attention to the statement of Dr. Dipak Mazumdar, the then Deputy Secretary (Personal) Department and Member of Special Committee. 6. I have gone through the statement which is in form of questions and answers. It is revealed by the statement and also the investigation prima facie that there was additional marks with regard to the present petitioner as a candidate for selection at that time which could not be explained and has been found to be anomalous. The investigation authority says that she has secured 106 marks and was placed at serial No. 3 of the selection list and another candidate by the name, Amal Nayan who had secured 136.50 marks was not selected. 7. The investigation materials prima facie clearly indicate that there was significant anomalies in the selection process to a public post which is undoubtedly a serious matter. Needlessly to say that since the petitioner has already served in a public post for 14 years; if the selection was indeed afflicted by anomalies; such case is a serious matter from the view point of governance and public service. 8. It is true that filing of a complaint after 14 years subsequent to the alleged incident is a matter of concern but what is more relevant at this case Page No.# 4/4 is the findings of the investigation which prima facie indicates anomalies and materials which cast doubts about the role of the petitioner also as a candidate in such selection process. The investigation has made progress but is not yet completed. 9. Despite the progress of investigation, the contention of the investigation agency put forth in the objection submitted by the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. It also be mentioned that the enquiry/investigation process also involved examination of the issue by a committee of experts from academics, which also returned an adverse report, pointing to selection anomalies. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned herein that despite the progress of investigation, no fetters whatsoever should be imposed on the investigation authority, at this stage also, with regard to the remaining investigation. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the present case would not be a fit for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected and the interim protection granted earlier is hereby vacated. 10. Send back the case diary. 11. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant