Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010152842026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1683/2026 ZANJEER AHMED SON OF P V AHMED KUTTY PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PADIYATH, PUTHENKATTIL HOUSE, KOTHAPARAMBU, ALA, KOTHAPARAMBA, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, KERELA- 680668 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A HUSSAIN, MR S DAS,G BORO,MR D J HALOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/4 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 199/2026 registered under Section 290/318(3)/316(2) and 324(5) of the BNS, 2023. The instant case relates to an FIR lodged on 17.07.2026 by which it was revealed that a Water Supply Project, which was initiated by tender process and while the work under the same was continuing, Elevated Service Reservoir (ESR) fell down and that it was alleged that falling of the said reservoir within few months of partial commissioning of the said project raised serious concern as to the quality of the work. It is alleged in the said FIR that although no substantial damage has been caused by falling of the reservoir thereof but it had brought serious embarrasment for the mission in question as well as to the Government of Assam and as such, an allegation was made against the Contractor i.e. the petitioner for not doing the work property. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said contract work for installing the Dhekiajuli Town Water Supply Project as well as for maintenance of the said project, a tender was floated, and in pursuance to the same, the work order was given to the petitioner and his company. He submits that work was allotted to the petitioner on 28.03.2023 and five year term was given to the petitioner i.e. the Contractor for furnishing the project including five years of maintenance. He further submits that the completion of the project i.e. construction of Dhekiajuli Water Supply including five years of operation and management was further extended till 09.09.2026 and he by further placing the terms and conditions have stated that minimum two months period is given for trial run. He as such submits that there are more than two months yet to go for completion of the said project and the said two months is required for trial run and as such that reservoir according to him was not Page No.# 3/4 complete and as such the FIR is stated to be premature as it could not have been used for ultimate public use before the completion thereof. He accordingly submits that the allegation against the petitioner for not constructing the said reservoir properly is not meted out. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that falling of the reservoir after it was constructed at Dhekiajuli Town by the petitioner and his company has to be taken seriously and that the quality of the said project needs to be seen and as such, the FIR was lodged. 5. On consideration of the submissions made for all the parties concerned, this Court finds the following: The contract was floated in the year 2023 and it was for installing the Water Supply Project in the Dhekiajuli town and five years time was given under the said contract work for maintenance of the same and there has been an extension for completion of the project till 09.09.2026 and as such, it is seen that the project has not been completed when the FIR was lodged i.e. on 17.07.2026. The project was directed to be completed by 09.09.2026 and there is a specific condition given that after finishing the contract work minimum of two months trial period should be observed. This trial period is provided for proper functioning of the said project. The trial period is yet to run and as such any fault with the project cannot be ascribed to any authorities before the completion of the said trial period. 6. In view of the same, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner be released Page No.# 4/4 on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Authority under the following conditions: i) the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when call for. ii) the petitioner will not hamper, tamper with the evidence, neither influence the witnesses connected with the case. iii) the petitioner will not leave the place of jurisdiction without the permission of the Investigating Officer. 7. The extension letter placed by the Counsel for the petitioner is kept in the records of the case. 8. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant