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/1663/2025 PRANJAL BORA SON OF LT. KHITI KT. BORA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DIMORUGURI NAGAON UNDER SADAR POLICE STATION NAGOAN IN THE DIST. OF NAGAON ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR D TALUKDAR Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 29.10.2025 Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance. Page No.# 2/4 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Pranjal Bora, 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 that pursuant to grant of interim bail, the petitioner has appeared before the I/O. It is submitted that he shall continue rendering cooperation to the investigation and that making his bail absolute would not jeopardize the investigation. It is also submitted that since he has rendered his cooperation to the investigation, his custodial detention may not be necessary. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner has duly got selected in a process which took place in 2011 itself and the police investigation has been initiated after a lapse of so many years and that the same is malafide and highly prejudicial to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner completely denies any wrongdoing on his part and any involvement in manipulation and that he had duly got selected for the post on merit. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance Cell, Mr. P. Kataki, on the basis of the case diary opposes the bail and submits that the present petitioner has also been beneficiary of a manipulated selection process. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposing the bail submits that the present petitioner is also a beneficiary of a manipulated selection process which could not have happened without his role as well in securing his selection through dubious means. The I/O has submitted a detailed bail objection strongly opposing the grant of bail. It is stated by the I/O that the present Page No.# 3/4 petitioner has secured his selection by way of forgery by depriving deserving candidate. 6. It is stated that there were four posts in the unreserved category and he secured 134.5 marks and was placed in the second position despite the fact that there were three other candidates who had secured higher marks than him and therefore the present petitioner should not have been selected at all. It is stated by the I/O that the investigation has revealed that several candidates who scored significantly higher marks were unjustly excluded from the final list and though the present petitioner secured lesser marks than those candidates, he was selected. It is stated that it is extremely unlikely that he was selected over deserving candidates in that unreserved category without some form of complicity in the manipulated selection process. 7. It is stated that the petitioner's assertion that he bears no responsibilities for any irregularities committed by the selection authorities is unconvincing and lacks substance. It is stated that the expert committee of Gauhati University also returned a finding regarding the undeserved selection of the present petitioner. The I/O has contended that after securing his selection through manipulation in an undeserved manner he continued to draw salaries and serve for so many years and also secured promotion and therefore his custodial examination is essential to go to the root of the matter. 8. It is contended by the I/O in the bail objection that granting of bail to the petitioner at this stage would be detrimental to the investigation. I have perused the relevant materials and considered the submissions of both the sides. If the materials revealed by the investigation are accepted on their face value, these Page No.# 4/4 clearly indicate that the present petitioner despite securing lesser marks than other more deserving candidates was selected over them. 9. The materials indicate his complicity as well in the manipulation of the selection process conferring undue benefit upon him by way of selection over more meritorious and more deserving candidates who had secured more marks in the selection process. I find force in the contention of the I/O that granting of bail to the petitioner in the backdrop of the nature of the alleged offence and allegations and the materials revealed – would not be in the best interest of the investigation. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.07.2025 hereby stands vacated and the present petition for anticipatory bail 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