Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010126332025 2025:GAU-AS:14486 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1324/2025 GOUTAM GOGOI S/O- TIRTHA NATH GOGOI, R/O- TIRUAL GAON, P.S- MARIANI, P.O- NAKACHARI, DIST-JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR PARAM HANGKHA KONWAR, P KHATANIAR,MR SAURADEEP DEY,MR S BORTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. P KATAKI, SPECIAL PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 29.10.2025 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/4 Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Goutam Gogoi, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Vigilance Police Station FIR no. 13/2025 under Section 120B/406/409/420/467/468/471 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to grant of interim bail, the petitioner appeared with the I/O and he has rendered his cooperation to the investigation and his statement has also been recorded. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner has been a beneficiary of the selection but he completely denies any wrongdoing on his part. It is submitted that the petitioner has duly got selected on merit in a selection process which was conducted in 2011 itself and has been rendering his service with sincerity and devotion all these years and at this stage after so many years a criminal case has been maliciously lodged arraying him also as an accused. It is submitted that the petitioner shall continue rendering cooperation and that his interim bail may be made absolute. 5. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Special Public Prosecutor CM Vigilance Cell who has opposed the bail petition. It is submitted that the selection of the present petitioner has been secured through manipulation and that investigation has revealed anomalies regard to his marking in written as well as by Viva voce and candidates who were more deserving than him having scored higher marks were unjustly deprived by the selection of this present petitioner. The learned Special Public Prosecutor seeks rejection of the bail petition. 6. Along with the case diary the I/O has also submitted a detailed bail objection strongly opposing the grant of bail. It is stated that there was only Page No.# 3/4 one post reserved in the OBC category and in the final list, out of a total post of total of 416 candidates, the position of the petitioner Gautam Gogoi was 47 by securing a total marks of 116.75. But in the reserved list of OBC category his position was found in the 13th position as the first rank holder in the reserved OBC category secured 135.25 marks. It is also stated that the second rank holder got 129.72 marks, third rank holder 127 marks, fourth rank holder secured 126.25 marks, fifth rank holder secured 124.75 marks, sixth rank holder secured 124.5 marks, seventh rank holder secured 123.5 marks, eighth rank holder secured 122.75 marks, ninth rank holder secured 122.25 marks, 10th rank holder secured 122.122 marks, 11th rank holder secured 119.5 marks and the 12th rank holder secured 117.5 marks. 7. It is stated by the I/O in the bail objection that investigation has revealed sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner also who got selected despite having secured 116.75 marks which was much less than several other candidates of the OBC category who despite having higher marks were not selected. The I/O has contended that the petitioner in collusion with examination officials and the then Director of Tourism conspired to secure his selection by dishonest means. It is stated that even the expert committee of Gauhati University who conducted an analysis of the selection process and the answer sheets stated that the name of Gautam Gogoi should not have figured in the list of successful candidates but he was still selected by the committee for criteria best known to them. 8. I have perused the materials available at this stage and considered the rival submissions. If the investigation materials are accepted on their face value, these also indicate the complicity of the present petitioner who was clearly a Page No.# 4/4 beneficiary of a manipulated selection and was selected despite several other candidates in the said selection process securing higher marks than him. No explanations have been put for selecting such a candidate over other more meritorious candidates having secured more marks. 9. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and I find force in the contention of the I/O that granting of bail to the petitioner might adversely affect the investigation and its final outcome. Accordingly the interim bail granted to the petitioner died order dated 12.06.2025 is hereby vacated and the instant anticipatory bail petition stands rejected at this stage. 10. Return back the case diary along with a copy of the order to the I/O. JUDGE Comparing Assistant