Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010148332026 2026:GAU-AS:12569 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2022/2026 SRI SANJAY TAMULY SON OF LATE LALINDRA TAMULI, RESIDENT OF SUBHASH NAGAR, WARD NO. 5, P.S. LANKA, IN THE DISTRICT OF HOJAI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM , REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMAH, LEGAL AID COUNSEL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 31.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying Page No.# 2/9 for grant of regular bail to the accused/petitioner who was arrested on 28.10.2025 in connection with the CID P.S. Case No. 16/2025 dated 08.09.2025 registered under Sections 120B/468/471/420/409 IPC to G.R. Case No. 4470/2025. 3. The petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Fisheries Development Officer (SDFDO) under the District Fisheries Development Officer (DFDO) establishment of Kamrup (Metro and was acted as a Nodal Office of the Fishery Mission Society - Chief Minister Samagra Gramya Unnayan Yojana Scheme. On 08.09.2025, the Informant, Dr. Ramendra Chandra Barman, Mission Director, FMS-CMSGUY, Directorate of Fisheries, Assam lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, CID Police Station, Ulubari, Guwahati alleging inter-alia for foad, forgery and criminal conspiracy FMS-CMSGUY. In the said FIR, it is stated that the accused/petitioner in connivance with other associates, on whose accounts, an amount of approximately Rs. 2,64,48,160/- was found to be transferred from the account of Fishery Mission Society without knowledge of the Informant along with the Financial Advisor by forging signatures and the said anomaly were detected on 18.08.2025. It was further alleged that the petitioner was involved in that illegal transfer of funds as all the amounts were transferred to his relatives and persons of his locality and the same was done between June 2021 to March, 2024. Page No.# 3/9 Accordingly, CID P.S. Case No. 16/2025 has been registered on 08.09.2025 under Section 120B/468/471/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was arrested by the CID on 28.10.2025 and he has spent about 10 months behind bars. The investigation of the case as against the present petitioner has been completed, and a charge sheet was submitted on 22.01.2026. However, charges are yet to be framed against the petitioner, presumably because the investigation is continuing against other co-accused persons and a supplementary charge sheet is yet to be filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the investigation against the present petitioner is over, considering the period of detention, the prayer for bail may be allowed. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the offence alleged is of a serious nature. 7. A scanned copy of the TCR has been called for and received. It appears therefrom that the case is primarily and almost entirely based on documentary evidence, supported by the statements of witnesses. The case heavily relies on documentary evidence involving banking transactions between the petitioner and other co-accused persons, and it appears that the documents and articles Page No.# 4/9 required for the prosecution of the case have already been seized. The petitioner, in view of his detention in custody, has obviously been placed under suspension, and being a government servant and a gazetted officer, he cannot be considered to be a flight risk under normal circumstances. 8. In Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Apex Court had occasion to discuss the principles governing the grant or denial of bail as follows: “37. The principles, which the Court must consider while granting or declining bail, have been culled out by this Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] thus: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well- settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of [the] evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words ‘reasonable grounds for believing’ instead of ‘the evidence’ which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the Page No.# 5/9 charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 38. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 31 & 32, paras 18 & 22) “18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41 : AIR 1978 SC 179] ]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) ‘11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in Page No.# 6/9 such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)’ 22. While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary.” 45. In Bihar Fodder Scam (Laloo Prasad case [Laloo Prasad v. State of Jharkhand, (2002) 9 SCC 372] ) this Court, taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed including the fact that the appellants were in jail for a period of more than six months as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pretrial prisoners would not serve any purpose. 46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same Page No.# 7/9 time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.” 9. Even in cases involving economic offences, the Court has to examine the gravity of the offence, the object of the Act, the attending circumstances, etc. Economic offences cannot be categorized into one blanket group, and the Court should not proceed under the presumption that denial of bail is the rule and grant is the exception. It was also noted in similar decisions that the allegations against the petitioner are yet to be proven, and further detention is not justified since the evidence before the authority is largely documentary and electronic in nature. 10. In Vinit Jain Vs Union of India (Crl.A. No. 2269/2025 decided on 28.04.2025), the Hon’ble Apex Court granted bail to an accused charged under the provisions of the CGST Act where the accused had been in custody for nearly seven months, the maximum punishment was five years, and the charge sheet had already been filed. Similarly, in Ashutosh Garg Vs Union of India SCP (Crl. No. 8740/2024 decided on 26.07.2024), the Hon’ble Apex Court granted bail to the appellant, who was alleged to have defrauded Page No.# 8/9 the State exchequer of INR 1032 crores as input tax credit by creating 294 fake firms, citing a long custody of nine months and the maximum period of imprisonment being only five years. Furthermore, in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs Union of India (SLP No. 10319/2022 decided on 05.12.2022), the Hon’ble Apex Court granted bail to the appellant charged under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act after noting that he had already undergone about four months of custody and the available evidence was mainly documentary and electronic in nature, and ocular evidence will be by official witnesses, thereby minimizing any possibility of tampering, intimidation, or influencing. 11. The petitioner, being a government servant, cannot be considered a flight risk, and the likelihood of his absconding is minimal. Being a sub-divisional-level officer, he cannot be said to hold such a high position, social standing, or wealth that would enable him to influence witnesses. The case being primarily based on documents that have already been seized, the likelihood of altering, concealing, or destroying such evidence is non-existent; therefore, the triple test appears to have been satisfied in the case of the present petitioner. Furthermore, although the charge sheet was filed in January, the trial is yet to commence in view of further investigation against other accused persons. It is noticed that by an order dated 04.08.2026, the Investigating Officer was granted another period of 90 days to continue further investigation under the Page No.# 9/9 proviso to Section 193(9) of the BNSS. Moreover, the charge sheet itself lists as many as 37 prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the commencement of the trial itself would be delayed, and its conclusion would also take a considerable period of time. 12. Balancing the right of the petitioner to personal liberty with the interest of the State and society, and keeping the aforesaid factors in mind, I am of the view that the petitioner may be granted the privilege of bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. 14. The petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam. 15. As further conditions, the petitioner shall cooperate with the remaining investigation, as also at the trial. Secondly, he shall not try to approach or influence any of the witnesses. Thirdly, he shall deposit his passport, if any, before the learned Special Judge, Assam. 16. The bail petition stands disposed of and allowed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant