Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010126332025 2025:GAU-AS:14486 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1464/2025 MONALISA GOSWAMI SON OF UTPAL GOSWAMI R/O VILLAGE HOUSE NO. 27 JOYPUR KHARGULI P.S. LATASIL GUWAHATI-781004 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. D DAS SR. ADV Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 29.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Pallab Kataki learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CM Vigilance Cell. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Monalisa Goswami, seeking pre- arrest bail in connection with Vigilance P.S Case No.13/2025 under Sections 120B/406/409/420/467/468/471 of IPC, R/W Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that though the alleged incident dated back to 2011 itself, the FIR was filed after a long time and that the allegations are politically motivated; that other members of the selection committee have not been arrayed as an accused; that the written test was outsourced to the organization Amtron and that the selection committee merely received the marks after the written test was conducted by the said outsourced agency. It is also submitted that while conducting the preliminary inquiry, no notice was given to the petitioner and others affected and therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated. It is submitted that pursuant to grant of interim, she was repeatedly called by the I.O and her statements Page No.# 3/8 have been recorded. 4. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner denies any overwriting. The petitioner also submits that there is long elapse of time and that in the meantime, she has also retired in 2022. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner drawing attention to the medical documents annexed to the petition, submits that the husband of the petitioner has been suffering from cancer and she has to constantly attend to him for his treatment. 6. There apart, it is also stated and submitted that the petitioner's mother herself is a 95-year-old suffering from various diseases and needing constant care and treatment. 7. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that she will render full cooperation to the investigation and therefore, since she had already appeared, her custodial examination is not necessary and prays for making absolute the interim bail granted to her. 8. The case diary as called for has been received along with a bail objection in which I.O has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 9. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CM Vigilance Cell that that the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the police and it does not necessitate the participation of the petitioner or giving notice to her. It is submitted that as Chairman, she was responsible for all the anomalies which Page No.# 4/8 were detected pursuant to the investigation. 10. It is submitted that a committee of experts from various departments of Gauhati University were engaged to scrutinize the selection process and the said committee found various anomalies whereby selections were made contrary to merit and persons who should have been selected were deprived of selection. 11. It is submitted by the Learned Special P.P that only two out of the four officers who were part of the selection committee had participated. It is submitted that as Chairman, the petitioner was responsible for the proper conduct of the selection process and that argument of the marks having been received from the Amtron does not carry water because manipulations were found subsequent to that stage. 12. The Learned Special P.P has drawn attention of the Court to the statement of Durgeswar Saikia, the then Under Secretary Department of Tourism and who was one of the members of the selection committee. The report of the team of experts who were engaged by the Investigating Agency to evaluate the selection process has returned procedural flaws as well as substantive flaws. The procedural flaws have been enumerated as follows - i) Putting name and address of candidates on the top sheet of the answer sheet is not in keeping with the standard examination procedure and compromised confidentiality. Evaluators of the answer scripts have not put his or her signature on the scripts after evaluation which is a serious lapse. No scrutiny of answer scripts was conducted after evaluation of the scripts as per the standard practice. Page No.# 5/8 ii) The total marks obtained by the candidates were put on the back cover page of the answer scripts in pencil in many cases which is not acceptable. iii) Each page of the evaluation sheet containing marks awarded by a Panel Member in viva-voice examination was not signed as per standard practice. 13. As already mentioned above, the team of experts comprising academicians from Guwahati University also found the following substantial flaws in the selection process - a) Many instances of overwriting on the marks awarded for a particular question in answer scripts of the written test were noted which were not duly authenticated by initials of the evaluator. b) Casting errors were noted in a few cases which have been highlighted in tabulation sheet. c) Some instances of overwriting were found which have been duly reported. d) Large number of instances of overwriting on the marks awarded to candidates in the viva-voice examination were noted which were not duly authenticated by initials of the concerned member of the selection committee. e) These were totaling errors in viva-voice examination marks of a few candidates. f) Discrepancies were found in marks entered in the compilation sheet for written test as well as viva-voice examination. g) Even though a selection committee for selection of candidates for direct recruitment to the cadre of Assistant Tourism Information Officer was constituted by Government of Assam vide Notification No. TSM/144/2001/ Pt.I/62 dated February 9, 2010, the committee of Page No.# 6/8 experts did not come across any documents signed by all the members of the selection committee on the basis of which the results were declared by the Director of Tourism, vide notice number DT-A/1112/07 dated 17.02.2011. And the committee opines that standard best practice has not been followed. 14. In this backdrop, the learned Special P.P submits that the FIR was lodged only after a thorough inquiry, clearly indicating criminal liability pertaining to manipulation in a public examination. 15. In the bail objection, the I.O has enunciated the various aspects of the investigation pertaining to the present petitioner Monalisa Goswami. 16. It is stated that the present petitioner has been revealed by the investigation to be the prime accused named in the FIR and that the investigation has also revealed that she was the kingpin behind the whole process of manipulation and forgery in the recruitment to the post of Assistant Tourism Officer in the Directorate of Tourism while she was serving there as the Directorate of Tourism, Assam. 17. It is stated in the bail objection that investigation revealed that several candidates who had scored significantly higher marks were unjustly excluded from the final list. The committee of experts, after their evaluation of the selection process, prepared a corrected select list for analysis and it revealed that many of the candidates who had secured higher marks were not selected and candidates securing lesser marks and having overwriting in their marking on the answer sheets, etc., were selected. The I.O in his written objection has stated Page No.# 7/8 and submitted that based on the investigation it was found that the total marks obtained by candidate Hiran Kumar Saikia was 139.75 and the marks given for question number four were corrected without any initial. 18. There was also found overwriting without initial in the marks that he was given in the oral test and he stood first in the list of selected candidates. It is contended by the I.O that one Dhani Kanta Kalita having roll number 1183 scored 142.25 marks which was the highest in the entire selection process but he failed to get selected. It is further stated that Madhab Das having roll number 455 scored total 125.75 marks and there was correction of marks given to question number 14 without initial and marks in oral test was increased by one Dhimbeswar Saikia by adding 24 marks making a grand total of 135. 19. Several other examples have been given of the manipulation that is revealed by the investigation. It is contended that the answer scripts of the selected candidates and record of viva-voice sheets were sent to the CFSL Kamrup for examination and after examination the CFSL Kamrup opined that in the written examination the marks of candidates Saymeen Mannan and Mehjubin Begum were illegally increased. Some of the handwriting in the answer sheets of candidates were found to be of different persons by the forensic examination. 20. The I.O has contended that the manipulation of such a public examination is a serious matter and investigation necessitates custodial examination of the petitioner and therefore granting of bail Page No.# 8/8 to the petitioner could seriously prejudice the investigation. 21. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the relevant materials. If the detailed report of the expert committee and the findings of investigation are to be taken at face value - these clearly indicate large-scale anomalies and manipulation in the selection process with regard to marking etc and the incriminating the materials revealed by the investigation also prima facie implicate the present petitioner. 22. I find force in the contention of the I.O that granting of bail to the petitioner in an investigation of this nature and in the backdrop of the alleged offences of this nature could be detrimental to investigation. Therefore in the facts and circumstances the instant petition for pre-arrest bail stands rejected. Consequently the interim bail granted to the petitioner order dated 26.06.2025 stands vacated. 23. Return back the case diary. 24. Accordingly, this bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant