Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010154492026 2026:GAU-AS:11388 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1726/2026 MANOJ JACOB S/O- LATE JACOB K. OOMMEN, R/O- FLAT NO. F2, LAKSHITA FLATS, SRI RAGHAVENDRA ENCLAVE, BHARATHI NAGAR, OLD PERUNGALATHUR EXTENSION, SRINIVASANAGAR, P.S. PERUNGALATHUR, DISTRICT- KANCHEEPURAM,TAMILNADU- 600063. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M M ZAMAN, MR. B J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. M. M. Zaman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioner, namely, Manoj Jacob is seeking Anticipatory Bail apprehending arrest in connection with an FIR, which is registered as ACB Police Station Case No. 24/2024 registered under Sections 120B/406/409/419/420/468/471 of IPC read with Sections 7(a)/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). 3. The said case was registered based on an FIR dated 16.03.2024, lodged by Shri Barun Purkayastha from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam. 4. The gist of the allegations is that a tender was floated for the purchase of 129 vehicles for the Assam Project on Forest and Biodiversity Conservation Society (APFBC), of which the petitioner was the then Project Director. 5. It is stated in the FIR that R10.94 crores was funded by Agence Francaise de Développement (AFD) for the purchase of the vehicles and accordingly, after the floating of the tender, 129 vehicles of different makes and models were purchased. There were only two bidders, namely, Industrial Farm and Equipment Private Limited and the SBL Knowledge Services Private Limited. 6. The tender was awarded to SBL Knowledge Services Private Limited. However, it is alleged that it was later found that some of the eligibility documents submitted by the successful bidder were manufactured and forged, including certain documents from Nagaland. 7. It is further alleged that manipulation in the tender process was done to favour the said bidder. In the FIR, 8(eight) persons are named along with unnamed others. The petitioner herein is named as accused No.6 in the FIR and he is stated to be the then Project Director of APFBC. Page No.# 3/4 8. The deponent has been cooperating with the investigation and to that effect, the deponent appeared before the Investigating Officer of ACB P.S. Case No. 24/2024 on 16.07.2026 and he was thoroughly interrogated and his statement was duly recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case. Although the petitioner was not under the protection of any order of the Court, he was not taken into custody. 9. In the case of Pradeep N Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr reported in (2025) 2 SCR 2091 cited for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed: “18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well- settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre- trial detention. The Court also takes note of the fact that the FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood of Page No.# 4/4 tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory bail is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required, he shall not be taken into custody, subject to conditions imposed hereinafter to ensure his participation in the inquiry process.” 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the objection filed by the Investigating Officer before the Court with the case diary, which has been perused. 11. It appears that the petitioner has been thoroughly interrogated. In case any further interrogation is required, there is no bar to the summoning of the petitioner for further interrogation, in the course of which the petitioner can be confronted with any other incriminating material unearthed during the course of investigation. 12. Having regard to the above, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail of Rs 1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority in connection with the aforesaid case. 13. It is further provided that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and appear to the IO as and when called and that he shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any of the witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. 14. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail petition is allowed and disposed of. 15. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant