Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010132512026 2026:GAU-AS:9783 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1751/2026 SHRI LACHIT KUMAR DAS S/O LATE LILA KANTA DAS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. GA, QUEENS GARDEN APARTMENT, BELTOLA TINIALI, NEAR BHARAT PETROLEUM, P.S. BASISTHA, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM PERMANENT ADDRESS HUZ GAON, P.S. DHAKUWAKHANA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TOBE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. R BARTHAKUR,P MAZUMDAR,MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR. D K BAIDYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 17.07.2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/5 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for the grant of bail to the arrested accused person Shri. Lachit Kumar Das, arrested on 21.05.2026 in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 19/2026 under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 21.05.2026, the informant namely Shri Janardan Medhi lodged a written First Information Report before the Officer-in-Charge, ACB Police Station, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam, alleging inter alia that he had entered into an agreement with one Md. Jehirul Hussain and his family members for purchase of a plot of land measuring approximately 3 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lessas covered by Dag No. 165 and Patta No. 63 situated at Village No. 1 Ganakpara under Kamrup District Assam. It alleged that permission from the competent authority was required for registration of the said land and that the relevant file had remained pending before the Directorate of Land Records and Surveys, Assam. The informant further alleged that on 14.05.2026, when he along with his nephew visited the office of the Directorate of Land Records and Surveys, Assam to enquire about the status of the said application, the present petitioner, who was then serving as Additional Director of the Directorate, allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) for facilitating the grant of the requisite permission. It was further alleged that the informant and his nephew expressed their inability to arrange such amount and thereafter returned from the office. 4. Thereafter, according to the informant, on 16.05.2026 he along with his nephew approached the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam and informed the authorities regarding the aforesaid allegation. Accordingly the vigilance authorities provided the informant with a recording device and deputed personnel of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam to assist in the process. The informant alleged that he again met the present petitioner and requested reduction of the alleged amount, whereupon the demand was allegedly reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. The informant further alleged that the entire conversation was recorded in the said recording device. Subsequently, Page No.# 3/5 stating that he was unwilling to pay the alleged amount, the informant lodged the aforesaid FIR before the ACB Police Station and handed over the said recording device to the vigilance authorities seeking legal action against the present petitioner, on the basis of which the present case came to be registered. 4. The accused/petitioner begs to state that on receipt of the aforesaid F.I.R dated 21.05.2026, the same was received vide ACB PS GDE No. 3 dated 21.02.2026 and one Kalpajit Sarmah, Inspector, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam (V&AC) enquired into the matter on the basis of the said FIR and on the same day i.e., on 21.05.2026 said enquiry officer submitted a verification/enquiry report before the Superintendent of Police of V&AC stating that he had found the allegations to be genuine. On basis of the said report Officer-in-Charge of the ACB Police Station registered the FIR as ACB P.S Case No.19/2026 dated 21.05.2026 under section 7(a) of the of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (as amended in 2018). 5. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2026 pursuant to a trap operation in course of which an amount of Rs. 45,000/- was recovered from the bag of the petitioner, which he allegedly received as illegal gratification for the work. Since then, the petitioner has spent 58 numbers of days in custody, four of which were spent in police custody. 6. Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel submits that this is a trap case and in such nature of cases, 90% of the investigation is completed on the day of the trap itself and the rest of the investigation are of a formal nature, and the petitioner has also been thoroughly interrogated in the course of police custody and therefore, having regard to the period of detention, further detention of the petitioner may not be necessary and the petitioner is ready to face the trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merits and is therefore ready to face the trial. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being a senior government servant, there is no flight risk and in view of his suspension, there is no possibility of misusing his official position to influence any Page No.# 4/5 witness. 7. Per Contra, the learned Additional, Public Prosecutor submits that besides the fact that the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 45,000/-, upon subsequent search of his and his relatives premises, a huge amount of money was recovered and the petitioner being an influential person, there is possibility that the petitioner may try to hamper the remaining investigation. 8. The Case Diary called for has been received and on perusal of the same, it appears that most of the investigation is already completed and all the incriminating material have been seized and voice sample of the petitioner has also been taken and submitted to FSL along with other material and only the report is yet to be collected. The last entry in the Case Diary is on 16.06.2026, i.e., a month ago. As far as the recovery of a huge amount of cash from the premises of the petitioner and his relative is concerned, the same is not connected to the present case and a separate case has been registered in that respect. 9. The petitioner being a senior government servant, there appears to be no flight risk and having regard to the advanced stage of the investigation, the scope for influencing the same is very limited. 10. Having regard to the above, as well as the fact that the statutory period of detention is 60 days in respect of the alleged offence, and the petitioner has already completed 58 number of days and also the fact that it is unlikely that the charge sheet would be filed within the aforesaid statutory period of detention, the prayer for bail is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount, one of them being a regular government servant to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam. 11. This bail is granted on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall not try to influence or intimidate any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Page No.# 5/5 ii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Learned Special Judge, Assam. iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial as and when one commences. 12. Petition stands allowed accordingly. 13. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant