Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040014662026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/121/2026 Ponya Lollen Son of Late Mopo Lollen, a permanent resident of Village Kombo Papak, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Executive Engineer, RWD Chayang Tajo Division, East Kameng District, Seppa, Arunachal Pradesh, VERSUS The State of AP represented by the Special Public Prosecutor (ACB) Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, Tojum Tao,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado,Kaling Mengu Advocate for the Respondent : Ojing Pada, Gallen Taloh,Uttam Bori,SC (ACB) Linked Case : AB/122/2026 Sanju Gyadi Age: 34 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Tame Gyadi permanent resident of Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh and presently posted as Junior Engineer (JE) at Rural Works Department Division Jairampur Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Page No.# 2/7 The State of AP Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Special Public Prosecutor (ACB) ------------ Advocate for : Kemo Lollen Advocate for : Ojing Pada appearing for The State of AP: Advocate appearing for respectively. Linked Case : AB/124/2026 Hangtim Rekhung Son of Hanglin Rekhung, permanent resident of New Chingsa village, PO and PS Kharsang, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Executive Engineer, RWD Division, Changlang cum DPIU-I, PMGSY Division, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the Special Public Prosecutor (ACB) Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Tagum, Hage Tai,Rage Koyu,Likha Tabin Advocate for the Respondent : Ojing Pada, Gallen Taloh,Uttam Bori BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 10-09-2026 Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioners in AB/121/2026 and AB/122/2026 and Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel for the petitioner in AB/124/2026. 2. Also heard Mr. O. Pada, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB and Mr. U. Bori, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2. Page No.# 3/7 3. By this common order, the aforementioned anticipatory bail applications are disposed of. 4. Invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners are seeking grant of pre-arrest bail apprehending their arrest in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 04/2026 registered under Sections 120(B)/409/420/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. The gist of the allegation is that a complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 2 alleging, inter alia, irregularities in the execution of PMGSY road projects under the Rural Works Department, Changlang Division. It is alleged that the said roads remain incomplete despite the release of payments and issuance of completion/clearance certificates. The complaint was initially made before the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Changlang District and upon a preliminary enquiry, was forwarded to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), pursuant to which the aforesaid case was registered and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act were also incorporated. 6. The petitioner, namely, Ponya Lollen (AB/121/2026), is stated to be the Assistant Engineer and the petitioner, namely, Sanju Gyadi (AB/122/2026), is the Junior Engineer, of the RWD department. The petitioner, namely, Hangtim Rekhung (AB/124/2026), is also stated to be an Executive Engineer in the same department. 7. These are subsequent bail applications, as earlier bail applications filed on behalf of the above petitioners were rejected by this Court, vide common order dated 05.08.2026 passed in AB Nos. 82/86/87 of 2026. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsels that, despite the rejection of their Page No.# 4/7 anticipatory bail applications by the earlier order, the petitioners have rendered cooperation in the investigation and have again prayed for pre-arrest bail in these petitions. It is submitted in this regard that they shall continue to render their cooperation and shall abide by any conditions imposed. 9. Drawing attention to the letter dated 09.03.2026 issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural Development, Government of India and addressed to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, it has been stated that several requests have been received from the State Governments for extension of the timeline for completion of the balance works under PMGSY Phase-I beyond March 2025 and upon considering the same, the time has been extended till 31.03.2027. It has been requested, however, to expedite the pending road works and complete them within the time frame. The States have been advised to avoid delays in project execution, fix accountability and strictly adhere to the above timeline. A status of PMGSY-I works was also annexed. Drawing attention to the said annexure, which reveals the status of the works as on 31.03.2025 and 09.03.2026 pertaining to the States, it is pointed out by the learned counsels that, with regard to Arunachal Pradesh, the total number of roads sanctioned was 1308, out of which 1245 had already been completed and as on 09.03.2026, 54 roads remained to be completed. 10. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to Annexure-24, which is a letter written by the Executive Engineer, Hangtim Rekhung (one of the petitioners), addressed to the Chief Engineer, PMGSY, Arunachal Pradesh, regarding non-completion of the two PMGSY road projects in question, which were awarded respectively to contractor’s M/s Sahabuddin Siddiqui and M/s Konsi Enterprises. Page No.# 5/7 11. Referring to the said communication, the learned counsel submits that action has already been initiated with regard to the defaulting contractor and to recover and utilise the deposited money in excess of Rupees Two Crores. Referring to the relevant extract of the said communication, the learned counsel submits that the completion certificate reflected on the website was due to a technical fault in the system and that it has been reiterated that no physical completion certificate has been issued from the Office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Changlang Division, with regard to the said two projects. The learned counsel submits that the allegations are about delay in completion of the projects and that there are no allegations of illegal gratification. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in AB No. 124 of 2026 also submits that the petitioner in this bail application is also suffering from a serious ailment, namely, a brain tumour, for which he is undergoing treatment, including outside the State. 13. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB, Mr. Pada, submits that the Investigating Officer is presently on leave and that the updated investigation has been procured and is being placed before the Court. 14. Upon perusing the same, I did not notice any significant investigation having been carried out in the intervening period since the date of the last rejection. However, the Investigating Officer has objected to the prayer for anticipatory bail while also stating, at the same time, that no arrest attempt is being made and that the petitioners are merely apprehending arrest. 15. The learned counsel for the informant submits that he does not dispute that, now officially, the time for completion of the works has been extended. He Page No.# 6/7 further submits that he is espousing public interest and that, if the work is done properly and completed within the extended time, his grievances would be addressed. 16. I have perused the relevant materials and considered the submissions. 17. It is revealed from the materials that the Union Ministry, pertaining to the matter, has extended the time for completion of the remaining works till the end of March 2027. I have taken note of the official communication clarifying that no physical completion certificate has been issued and that action has also been initiated against the defaulting contractors. Further, from the chart annexed with the Union Ministry's communication and also annexed with the bail petition, it is revealed that the bulk of the work under the PMGSY has been completed and only 54 roads remain to be completed out of 1308. The Investigating Officer has also not attempted to arrest the petitioners so far, as revealed from his contention in the Case Diary. It appears that parts of the investigation have already been completed and the updated Case Diary does not reveal any significant further investigation. 18. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that - though the Investigating Officer has objected to the subsequent bail petitions as well - the granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, at this stage, may not unduly prejudice the investigation, especially when the petitioners have not been arrested all this while and in particular, during the intervening period after the rejection of their earlier bail applications. 19. In such view of the matter, the subsequent bail petitions are allowed. 20. Accordingly, it is directed that, in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 04/2026, registered under Sections Page No.# 7/7 120(B)/409/420/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, they shall be released on pre- arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: (i) They shall cooperate with the remaining investigation and shall make themselves before Investigating Officer, available as and when required; (ii) They shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence; (iii) They shall not commit any illegal activities. 21. In the event of violation of any of the bail conditions, the bail granted to the petitioners shall be liable to be cancelled. 22. Return back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant CHECKED & VERIFIED Digitally signed by Jumbi Bam Date: 2026.09.10 19:42:22 +05'30'