Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010158942026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2124/2026 SHRI PUNIT AGARWAL AND ANR S/O SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C3H, SHUBHAM BUILDWELL, ZOO ROAD, GUWAHATI - 781006, ASSAM PERMANENT ADDRESS WARD NO. 3, ANCHALI ROAD, PATHSHALA 781325, ASSAM. 2: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL S/O LATE SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL R/O RAJDHANI APARTMENT FLAT NO. 302 CHRISTIAN BASTI AMRAVATI PATH GUWAHATI - 781005 ASSA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, P MAZUMDAR,MR. V A CHOWDHURY,MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR. D K BAIDYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 07.08.2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D. K. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing counsel, CBI. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereby the petitioners, namely, 1. Shri Punit Agarwal and 2. Shri Manish Agarwal have prayed for releasing them on bail after they were arrested on 01.07.2026 in connection with RC0172026A0006 registered by CBI, ACB, Guwahati dated 01.07.2026, under Section 61(2) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 7 and 12 of the P.C. Act (as amended in 2018) against Aanand Singh Chauhan, Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shillong and others. 3. The case as projected by the petitioners is that the present case arises out of RC Case No. RC0172026A0006 dated 01.07.2026, registered by the Central Bureau of iNvestigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Guwahati under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of a written complaint lodged by Md. Matlebuddin Ahmed, Director of M/s Purvanchal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. The FIR alleges that Shri Aanand Singh Chouhan, Project Director (PIU), NHAI, Shillong, demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for processing his pending bills and, pursuant to the alleged arrangement, directed the complainant to deliver the amount to petitioner No.1, Shri Punit Agarwal, at Page No.# 3/5 Guwahati, where the amount was allegedly received by petitioner No.2, Shri Manish Agarwal, an employee of the petitioner No.1. On the basis of the said allegations, the aforesaid case came to be registered against the accused persons. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that according to the prosecution itself, Shri Aanand Singh Chouhan instructed the complainant to hand over the alleged amount at Guwahati and furnished the mobile number of petitioner No. 1, Shri Punit Agarwal, for the said purpose. Acting upon the request of the said public servant, petitioner No. 1 agreed to receive and retain the package until it could be collected by Shri Aanand Singh Chouhan. As petitioner No. 1 was not present in his office at the relevant time, he instructed petitioner No. 2, Shri Manish Agarwal, his employee, to receive the package on his behalf in the ordinary course of his employment. The prosecution's own petition seeking CBI custody remand dated 01.07.2026 records these circumstances. It is further the case of the prosecution that, pursuant to the trap proceedings, the complainant delivered the package at the office of petitioner No. 1, whereupon petitioner No. 2 received the same before both the petitioners were apprehended by the CBI. At no stage does the prosecution allege that either of the petitioners independently initiated, negotiated or communicated any demand for illegal gratification to the complainant. 5. Per contra learned Standing counsel, CBI with reference to the objection submitted by the CBI has submitted that the investigation is ongoing and is at a highly sensitive stage and releasing the petitioners on bail, poses an imminent risk of witness coercion, destruction of electronic footprints, and collusion with the co-accused, public servant. And therefore, also considering the gravity of Page No.# 4/5 the offense, the prayer for bail is liable to be rejected. 6. There is no dispute that the present petitioners were not the ultimate recipients of the alleged bribe money, but were only acting as intermediaries or middlemen, who were involved in the collection of the bribe amount from the complainant for the purpose of handing it over to the main accused public servant, who had allegedly demanded the said bribe amount. Consequent to their arrest, the petitioners were remanded to police custody, where CBI had opportunity to interrogate the petitioners. And during their period in jail custody, no application was filed by CBI for their further interrogation. 7. The arrest of the petitioners have been made pursuant to a trap operation. And all the incriminating material has already been seized. And further the contention that the petitioners would resort to coercing of witnesses, destruction of electronic evidence and collusion with the Principal Accused are general in nature and can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions in the event of grant of bail. 8. Having regard to the above as well as the fact of detention of about 36 days, further detention of the petitioners may not be necessary. Consequently, the prayer for bail is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on a bail bond of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam. Further, it is provided that the petitioners upon their release on bail shall not try to contact or influence any witness or persons acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner. Page No.# 5/5 9. With the above directions, the bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant