Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010170692025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1846/2025 SHRI DR CHITTA RANJAN DEB S/O LT SUDHIR CHANDRA DEB PRESENT ADDRESS SANGTEMLA WARD HOUSE NO. 41C BLOCK II MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND PS MOKOKCHUNG PS 1 PO MOKOKCHUNG DIST MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND PIN 798601 PERMANENT ADDRESS 165 CHINAIHANI BEHIND UBI USHABAZAR SINGARBIL PS WEST AGARTALA PS AND PO AGARTALA AERODROME SO DIST WEST TRIPURA TRIPURA PIN 799009 VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REP BY THE PP CBI ACB GUWAHATI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. K L R YANTHAN, AO NUKSUNG,MS. U NANDA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 14.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. K. L. R. Yanthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms., learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This petition under Section 482 of BNSS, is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Dr. Chitta Ranjan Deb Page No.# 2/5 apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. RC0172025A0007 dated 12.07.2025 corresponding to Case NO. RC-07(A)/2025-GUW registered u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The case was registered and is being investigated by the CBI. The case arose out of an FIR lodged before the CBI with allegation that the accused petitioner named above indulges in corrupt practices pertaining to financial transactions with different vendors, of the university. In this connection a specific allegation has been made with regard to such an illegal transactions from one Rabindra Jain. It is also alleged that there is also an illegal demand from one Gulzar Hussain. Both these persons are stated to be vendors selling goods to the university. Upon registration of the case, the CBI took after the investigation and seized some documents which have also been annexed with the petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 7 of the P.C. Act requires the basic ingredients of demand and acceptance of the illegal amount and in the present case the said basic ingredients is missing. To support the contention, learned counsel takes recourse for a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Neeraj Dutta vs State reported in 2023 Criminal Law Journal 1856. The relevant para being paragraph 10 is brought to the notice of the Court. It is also submitted that the aforementioned Ravindra Jain, who was co-accused in this case was granted anticipatory bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 08.08.2025. The learned counsel submits that apart from the FIR being deficient in the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance, the petitioner has also been falsely implicated by inimical interests as he has applied for the post of vice-chancellor in two universities. It is Page No.# 3/5 contended that the petitioner is innocent and that he would render full co- operation to the investigation. 5. On the other hand, Ms. M. Kumari, learned standing counsel, CBI submits that the case diary up to the latest stage of investigation is available. Supporting the objection filed by the CBI, learned standing counsels submits that the investigation has found sufficient materials and that the FIR itself refers to demand made by the accused petitioner. The learned standing counsel has taken the Court through the narration of the objection filed by the CBI in this regard. Learned counsel contends on the basis of the objection that investigation so far found prima facie material about demand by the accused petitioner to the vendor, Rabindra Jain representing concerned name Ms. Jaldhara and Company from Jorhat. 6. Learned counsel has also referred to CDR analysis and submitted before the court about implicating telephonic conversation which lends support to such illegal transactions between the accused and one vendor. It is submitted that with regard to the other mentioned vendor the investigation is in progress and his role in illegal transaction, if any need to be investigated as well. 7. With regard to the contention in the objection about the petitioner being in touch with the said Rabindra Jain, learned counsel for the CBI refers to paragraph 9 of the petition filed by the petitioner and submits that it is stated therein about the petitioner visiting the said vendor. 8. Referring to page 49 of the case diary, the learned counsel refers to a transaction of Rs.20,000/- to the wife of the petitioner. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner is not accused so far and CBI has not been able to prove that the said transaction is a Page No.# 4/5 bribe. With regard to the bail granted to the co-accused, learned counsel for the CBI submits that parity cannot be applied automatically and that, despite the grant of bail to the co-accused, the case of the present accused stands on a different footing. 9. I have seen the progress of investigation in the case diary. Though there is some progress in the investigation but the same is not yet completed. It is also contended by the CBI that the petitioner has access to the GEM (Govt. E. Marketing) portal and through which he can identify the vendors. Learned prosecution counsel has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Adity Sarda reported in Crl. A. 1872 with 1873-1888 of 2025. 10. In the said judgment Hon’ble Apex court after referring to several earlier decisions of the court has gone into the discretion to be exercised under section 438 while adjudicating anticipatory bail. A reference has also been made to the issue of financial crimes and the discretion of anticipatory bail vis-a-vis such crimes. 11. I have perused the pleadings and the relevant portions of the case diary and considered the submissions of the learned counsels on both sides. Needless to say that the demand and acceptance is one of the core ingredients of the Anti Corruption Law in India, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases, Neeraj Dutta (supra) being one of the important ones. 12. While considering the question of any bail, some of the factors that the Court has to look at are - gravity of the offence; the position of the accused vis- à-vis victim and witnesses; the flight risk of the accused; the risk of tampering of evidence; the risk of influencing witness; other relevant miscellaneous Page No.# 5/5 factors. 13. In the case of anticipatory bail, one additional factor has to be seen i.e. whether the Investigating Agency would be hampered if it is deprived of custodial examination of the accused. 14. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for CBI, perusing the contentions made in the written objection and the relevant portion of the case diary referred to - I am of the considered view that the FIR together with the investigation materials prima facie indicate some illegal demand and payments though the further details of the same are subject to continuing investigation. 15. I find force in the contention of the prosecution that crucial evidence is yet to be collected, on the basis of the linkages already revealed though the investigation, including the Call Detail Records. It also has to be kept in mind the nature of the alleged offence being investigated. Keeping all aspects in mind, I am of the view that the investigating agency should be given full flexibility to investigate the case properly and find the truth. 16. In this backdrop, I am of the view that granting bail at this stage might create road blocks for effective investigation. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, I do not find sufficient merit in the prayer for anticipatory bail which accordingly stands rejected at this stage. 17. The bail application stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 18. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant