Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010094032026 2026:GAU-AS:7063 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/993/2026 PANKAJ KUMAR DEKA S/O HANGSHA NATH DEKA, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.402, REGAL MAJESTY BLOCK-B, NARAKASUR, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-781019, P.S. DISPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A HUSSAIN, MR D J HALOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 21.05.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr.S.Das for the petitioner Pankaj Kumar Deka who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with Vigilance PS Case No. Page No.# 2/4 06/2026 under Section 13(1) (b)/13 (2) & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR was lodged on 06.05.2026 relating to incident of 27.03.2024. 3. The FIR unfolds that a parcel of land admeasuring 5B 3K 4L pertaining to Dag No. 75 of Patta No. 78 have been under the possession of the forefathers of the informant. This land was allotted by the Circle Officer, Sipajhar in the name of one Parikhit Sharma by order dated 22.01.2021 despite the fact that the land was not in his possession. It is alleged that the land was allotted illegally by some officials of Shipajhar Revenue Circle in connivance with one, Kulen Nath and others. Sri Parikhit Sarma subsequently sold the land to Sri Kulen Nath, Masud Ali, Mohammad Lutfur Rahman and Kabul Hussain vide sale deed No.2651, dated 07.02.2023. This led to a regular enquiry vide R.E. No. 04/2024 by the vigilance PS. 4. It is submitted that during an inquiry it was found that Sri Kamaljeet Sharma, ACS, the then Circle Officer of Sipajhar and others in connivance with the present petitioner- when he was serving as ADC, Darrang and another person namely Kulen Nath were involved in the illegal allotment of land to Parikhit Sharma. It was also found that the present petitioner was also involved in other illegal activities relating to acquisition of movable and immovable properties. The present petitioner had amassed wealth of Rs. 2,94,50,171.42 which is disproportionate to his income and whose assets and liabilities were only of Rs.5,48,740/- before the check period commenced. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the incident occurred way back on 27.03.2024. The petitioner is at present serving in the district of Cachar. Page No.# 3/4 The petitioner's wife also has her own source of income which has not been calculated while calculating the disproportionate assets of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in service for several years and he is aged around 52 years at present. The income of the petitioner and his wife cannot be considered to be disproportionate assets. It is also submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the I.O and has co-operated with the investigation. Articles were also seized from his residence at Guwahati. The petitioner who is in another district will not be able to hamper the investigation. 6. The learned Special P.P., C.M. Special Vigilance Cell, Mr. P. Kataki and the learned Additional Special P.P. Mr. P.P. Dutta have submitted that the case diary is produced and there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary. They have raised strong objection stating that the petitioner has amassed wealth illegally. 7. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumscription. 8. I have also scrutinized the case records. Investigation has progressed to some extent. It appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required. I have considered the submission that the petitioner being an employee and a government official is not a flight risk. 9. Considering all aspects and in view of the foregoing discussions, it appears that pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioner. 10. The petitioner named above shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of arrest on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions: Page No.# 4/4 (i) The petitioner shall appear before the 1.0. within 10 days from today and shall co-operate with the investigation, (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for, (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and (iv) The petitioner shall not exercise any threats to the witnesses or try to influence them. 11. On breach of any of the above conditions, pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner shall automatically stand cancelled. 12. In terms of the above observations, the pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. 13. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant