Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010079202026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1078/2026 NUPUR BORA D/O KINARAM BORA, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 5A, 5TH FLOOR, BLOCK A, SHINE SHANTI GREENO APARTMENT, PNGB ROAD, GOTANGAR, PS JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N MAHAJAN, MR. D BORA,MR. A CHAUDHURY,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 03.09.2026 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kotoki, learned Senior Advocate/ Special P.P for the CM’s Special Vigilance Cell assisted by Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Addl. P. P. for the CM’s Special Vigilance Cell. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for Page No.# 2/9 granting bail to the petitioner, namely, Nupur Bora, in connection with Special Case No. 25/2026 under Sections 120(B)/ 409/ 420 of IPC and Sections 61(2)/ 316(5)/ 318(4) of BNS read with Section 13(1)(a)/ 13(2)/ 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), presently pending in the learned Court of Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati arising out of Vigilance Police Station Case No. 32/2025 under Section 120(B)/ 420 of the IPC read with Sections 13(1)(a)/ 13(2)/ 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988. 3. The case has already been charge sheeted. I have perused the Charge Sheet and some of the relied upon documents filed along with the Charge Sheet. There is allegation against the petitioner that she had passed order for mutation without proper transfer of land. It is alleged that the petitioner passed a total of 547 anomalous mutation orders (285 in Barpeta and 262 in Goroimari) under the categories of Sale, Gift, Exchange and Onxidaar without the mandatory registered sale Deed, Gift Deed etc. The act was done in direct contravention of Sec. 53 (A)1 of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886, Rule 211 of the Assam Land Records Manual 1906, Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 and other Govt. Notification regarding mutation of land. She has caused a total loss of Govt. Revenue of Rs. 35,39,603/- in Barpeta and Rs. 34,01,410/- in Goroimari due to evasion of Stamp Duty, Registration Fees and NOC Charges. There are allegations that the accused used to direct citizens to apply under false categories and also actively solicit and accepted illegal gratification as "Processing Fees". She had possessed huge amount of disproportionate assets and a cash amount of Rs. 1,47,35,300/- was Page No.# 3/9 recovered from her residence and bank locker. The accused had committed such offences in connivance with sub-ordinate Revenue Officials such as Pradip Das, Jagendra Nath Baro, Safiur Rahman, etc. 4. Mr. BK Mahajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that in respect of the allegation regarding recovery of rupees 1,47,35,300 from the residence and bank locker of the petitioner, another case relating to possession of disproportionate assets has been registered as Vigilance PS Case No. 25/ 2025 under section 13(1)(b)/ 13(2)/ 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the said case, the petitioner has already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, although the present charge sheet also refers to the aforesaid recovery, the same cannot be clubbed with the present case. It is further submitted that in the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is primarily relating to causing loss to the government exchequer to an amount of approximately Rs. 65,00,000/- and the case is based only on documentary evidence and said documents have already been seized. Moreover, considering the period of detention of the petitioner for about 7 months, there is no purpose in keeping the petitioner behind bars, inasmuch, as charges are yet to be framed and the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude and furthermore, the petitioner also is required to prepare her defence. 5. Per Contra, Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Choudhury submits that the allegations are very serious in nature. 6. After the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 03.02.2026 and she has spent about 7 months behind bars. The investigation of the case as against the present petitioner has been Page No.# 4/9 completed, and a charge sheet was submitted on 31.03.2026. However, charges were yet to be framed against the petitioner as of 08.05.2026 when the TCR copy was forwarded by the learned trial Court. The IO was granted permission to continue further investigation by order dated 31.03.2026 and 90 days have elapsed since then. 7. It appears from the scanned copy of the TCR that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence, supported by the statements of witnesses most of whom are official witnesses and it appears that the documents and articles required for the prosecution of the case have already been seized. The petitioner, in view of her detention in custody, has obviously been placed under suspension, and being a government servant and a gazetted officer, she 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 wellsettled 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 Page No.# 5/9 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 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 Page No.# 6/9 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 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 [La'oo 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. Page No.# 7/9 46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are alsc cor scious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same 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 the State exchequer of INR 1032 crores as input tax credit by creating 294 Page No.# 8/9 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 her absconding is minimal. Although an ACS Officer, she cannot be said to hold such a high position, social standing, or wealth that would enable her 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 March, the trial is yet to commence. Moreover, the charge sheet itself lists as many as 43 prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the trial itself would also take a considerable period of time to conclude. 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. Page No.# 9/9 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 trial Court. 15. As further conditions, the petitioner shall cooperate with the remaining investigation, as also at the trial. Secondly, she shall not try to approach or influence any of the witnesses. Thirdly, she shall deposit his passport, if any, before the learned trial Court. 16. The bail petition stands disposed of and allowed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant