Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010164552025 2025:GAU-AS:10499 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1794/2025 RAVINDRA KUMAR JAIN S/O- BIMAL KUMAR JAIN, R/O- CHALIHA LANE, RAJABARI, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN - 785014. VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPRESENTED BY THE SC, CBI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, MS. P SAHARIA,C SARMA,V KHAKHALARY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 08.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, the learned Standing Counsel, CBI. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Page No.# 2/5 Ravindra Kumar Jain, who isapprehending his arrest in connection with CBI ACB Case No.RC0172025A0007 dated 12.07.2025 (RC7A/2025) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that, on the basis of an information received through reliable sources, Shri R. Prakash, IPS, DIG, CBI ACB Guwahati had lodged an FIR, inter alia, alleging that one Dr. Chittaranjan Dev, Senior Professor and Director, IQAC, Dean of School of Sciences, Department of Botany, Nagaland University, has been indulging in corruption and illegal practices. 4. It is further alleged in the FIR that said Dr. Chittaranjan Dev had demanded bribe from the present petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s Jaldhara & Co.of Jorhat. 5. It was also alleged in the FIR that from reliable sources, it was also gathered that said Dr. Chittaranjan Dev will be visiting Jorhat on 12.07.2023 and he was to meet the present petitioner for obtaining a bribe of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. He submits that the petitioner has been wrongly shown as the proprietor of M/s Jaldhara& Co., whereas, he is in no way related to the said company. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said company is owned by Vimal Kumar Jain, who is the father of the petitioner. 7. He has further submitted that the father of the petitioner had taken on Page No.# 3/5 rent a house in the residence of Chittaranjan Dev and towards the payment of rent Rs.66,000 (Rupees Sixty-Six Thousand) was paid to the account of the wife of said Dr. Chittaranjan Dev. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the CBI has conducted search operation in the office premises of the present petitioner and has seized certain documents as well as mobile phone of the petitioner and now, he is apprehending that he may be arrested in connection with the aforesaid case. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigationand hence, prays for granting him anticipatory bail. 10. On the other hand, Ms. M. Kumari, the learned Standing Council, CBI has produced the Case Diary and has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 11. She submits that the main accused Dr. Chittaranjan Dev had demanded undue advantage from the present petitioner against supply orders given to the M/s Jaldhara & Co. for supplying some equipments and consumables to the university. She also submits that there are materials in the Case Diary to indicate that the present petitioner gave undue advantage/ bribe to Dr. Chittaranjan Dev. 12. The learned Standing Counsel, CBI has further submitted that during search operation in the premises of the petitioner, several incriminating documents have been seized. Page No.# 4/5 13. She further submits that the investigation is at initial stage and therefore, at this stage, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary produced by the learned Standing Counsel, CBI. 15. On perusal of theCase Diary, it appears that presently the accusation made against the petitioner are only in the realm of suspicion. The suspicionhow so ever strong, cannot take theplace of evidence. The Investigating Officer has already conducted a search operation in the premises of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, when the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation, this Court is of considered opinion that his custodial interrogation may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 16. In view of the above, the above-named petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of this order and cooperate in the investigation. If he does so within the stipulated period, in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, the above-named petitioner shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with asuitable suretyof like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions: - (i) the petitioner shall appear 10(ten) days from the date of this order and shall co-operate with the investigation; Page No.# 5/5 and (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. 17. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. 18. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant