Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010236022025 2026:GAU-AS:5924 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2531/2025 PORAG JYOTI PATHAK S/O SHRI RUDRA KUMAR PATHAK RESIDENT OF S.S. ROAD, ABHAYAPURI, WARD NO. 3, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783384 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR. T N SRINIVASAN,MR. M SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SC, CBI BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 29.04.2026. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent CBI. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre- Page No.# 2/3 arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Shri Parag Jyoti Pathak, who is apprehending arrest in connection with the Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 188/2025, registered under Section 108/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that from the plain reading of the FIR, it is seen that the present petitioner is not an FIR named accused, wherein some allegations of work related pressure to do some illegal activities were brought in the FIR for which the victim had to take such steps. The petitioner is a Civil Engineer and it is a fact that the entire contract work for construction of the mini stadium was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner, who is a contractor by profession. That apart, the petitioner has no role or involvement in the present offence. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that all the co-accused persons have already been granted bail and his father is also granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, there is no ingredients against the present petitioners under Section 108/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. However, after obtaining the interim pre-arrest bail order, the petitioner had appeared as and when he was called and cooperated and extended his cooperation in the investigation of this case. The petitioner is still ready and willing to extend his cooperation in further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Ms. Kumari, the learned standing counsel for the respondent CBI submitted in this regard that there is sufficient progress in the investigation of the case and the case is ready for submission of the final report. However, she submitted that though the work order was in favour of his father, who was a contractor but the Page No.# 3/3 petitioner was supervising the entire project work and his involvement is also there in the case. However, the learned standing counsel submitted that the petitioner had extended his cooperation and appeared before the I.O. as and when he was called for. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary and it is seen that there some incriminating materials against the present accused petitioner. However, considering that the investigation is already progressed and at the stage of filing of the final report and at the same time, it is also seen that the accused petitioner had extended his cooperation. Considering all these aspects of the case vis-à-vis the present petitioner is under the same footing and hence, on the ground of parity also it is seen that the present petitioner entitles for the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the present petitioner on 27.10.2025, is hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions, with further direction to appear before the I.O. as and when his cooperation will require prior to filing of the final report. With the above observation, the present bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant