Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010151032025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1609/2025 PURNA SINDHU MUDOI SON OF GUNA SINDHU MUDOI RESIDENT OF SATGAON NAPARA, HOUSE NO. 52, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-37, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MD I H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kotoki, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance Cell. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Purna Sindhu Mudoi, who is apprehending his arrest in connection Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18/2025, under Page No.# 2/4 Section 13(1)(b)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 26.06.2025, one Thagish Doley, Inspector of Police, CM’s Special Vigilance Cell had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Vigilance police station, inter alia, alleging that on the basis of a regular Enquiry (RE No. 10/2025), the regular enquiry which was conducted against the present petitioner he has been found to possess assets disproportionate to his non source of income. 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been appointed temporarily as Drug Inspector under Regulation 3(f) and therefore he is till now not a regular Government servant and he submits that the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that during the regular enquiry while coming to conclusion that the petitioner possess assets disproportionate to his non source of the income, the income of the wife of the petitioner has been ignored by the Enquiry Officer. He further submits that the petitioner had co-operated during regular enquiry and even after filing of the FIR against him he has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has co- operated in the investigation. However, he is apprehending that he may be arrested in connection with the aforesaid case. 5. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Senior Superintendent of Police of Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell has communicated a letter dated 21.07.2025 to him wherein in the Investigating Authority is objecting to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage on the ground that the offence alleged in this case involves huge quantity of money. Further, it is also submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that Page No.# 3/4 there is a possibility of life risk and therefore, anticipatory bail may not be granted to the petitioner at this stage. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. Though accusation against the petitioner in having assets disproportionate to his non source of income is there in this case, however, it appears that he has been co-operating in the investigation, in the regular enquiry as well as in the investigation and there is no basis of speculating that he may not co-operate in the investigation and he may flee away from this course of justice. 7. Even if any such apprehension is there, same may be addressed by imposing appropriate condition while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has been appearing regularly and is also ready to continue to appear before the Investigating officer and co-operate in the investigation, his custodial interrogation may not necessary if he co-operates in the investigation. 8. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer of Vigilance PS Case No. 18/2025, within a period of 10(ten) days from the date of this order and co-operate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period of time, in the event of his arrest in connection with the above-noted case, he shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions that:- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer within 10(ten) days from the date of this order and shall co-operate with the investigation; and Page No.# 4/4 (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. (iii) the petitioner during the course of investigation shall not leave the State of Assam without taking prior approval of the Investigating Officer of the Vigilance PS Case No. 18/2025. 9. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant