Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010068612026 2026:GAU-AS:5560 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./957/2026 SHRI MAISNAM RITEN KUMAR SINGH SON OF SHRI. MAISNAM IBOTON SINGH, PERMANENT ADDRESS KWAKEITHEL THOKCHOM LEIKAI, IMPHAL, MANIPUR PIN-795001 PRESENT ADDRESS FLAT NO. 502, GUNJAN JAYSHREE ENCLAVE, NARIKOLBARI, GUWAHATI, POLICE STATION GEETANAGAR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM PIN-781024 VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE STANDING COUNSEL, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. P GAYON,MR. T DEURI,N GAUTAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, Page No.# 2/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 23.04.2026 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Deuri, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kumari, the learned Standing Counsel, C.B.I. 2. This is the second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 after rejection of the earlier one on 16.03.2026 vide Bail Application No.32/2026. 3. The petitioner is a high ranking officer of NHIDCL at Guwahati. On the other hand, M/s. Mohan Lal Jain was constructing the 4 lane High Way of National Highway No.37 between Demow and Moran Bypass. The work was scheduled to be completed by July, 2024. But the work was not completed within the stipulated time. Therefore, the said firm decided to apply for grant of extension of time and for a completion certificate. They did so accordingly. 4. Shri Binod Kumar Jain and Amit Jain are the partners of the said firm. They decided to come to Guwahati to meet the present petitioner for the aforesaid purpose. 5. In the meantime, the respondent C.B.I. came to know that the said firm would be paying bribe to the present petitioner to get those two certificates. 6. On 14.10.2025, Binod Kumar Jain handed over a sum of ₹10 lakh to the petitioner in his office chamber and it was immediately recovered by the C.B.I. team. 7. Today, Mr. Choudhury has submitted that nobody had seen the petitioner taking the money from Binod Kumar Jain because the money was recovered from the drawer Page No.# 3/4 of the table of the petitioner. 8. In its objection, C.B.I. has also admitted that nobody had seen the present petitioner taking money from the aforesaid person. The CBI however claimed that mere absence of direct visual evidence of hand-to-hand transaction at a particular place does not dilute the prosecution case against the present petitioner. 9. On the basis of the objection filed by the C.B.I., the learned counsel Ms. M. Kumari has submitted that CBI had also seized one diary from the possession of the petitioner wherein it was mentioned about receipt of ₹10 lakhs from M/s. M.L. Jain. Ms. Kumari further submits that if the petitioner is now released on bail he would influence the prosecution witnesses. 10. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury has submitted that there is no possibility of influencing the witnesses because all prosecution witnesses in this case are CBI officials. 11. Apart from that, Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the petitioner has been suffering from certain ailments and he has also spent more than 100 days in judicial custody. 12. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 13. The C.B.I. has admitted that there were no eye witnesses supporting the hand- to-hand monetary transaction between the present petitioner and Binod Kumar Jain. On the earlier occasion, this fact was not raised before this Court. Therefore, I had a different opinion. Today, I have decided to agree with the petitioner that nobody had seen him taking money from Binod Kumar Jain though an amount of ₹10 lakh was recovered from his office. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the bail application of the petitioner is allowed. Page No.# 4/4 15. The petitioner Shri Maisnam Riten Kumar Singh, who is facing trial in connection with Case No.RC-12(A)/2025-GWH (FIR No.RC01725A0012) under Sections 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is allowed to be released on bail of ₹50,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. The petitioner is directed to appear in the court regularly without fail. If he fails to do so, without showing sufficient reasons, the trial court shall have the liberty to procure his attendance by due process of law. With the aforesaid direction, the present bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant