Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010127182026 2026:GAU-AS:9959 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1382/2026 SRI K.S.P.V PAVAN KUMAR , SON OF K.V.N NAGENDRA SAYEE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF C-205, UNIVERSAL EO GREEN APARTMENT, AHOMGAON, BETKUCHI, GUWAHATI UNDER GARCHUK POLICE STATION IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN-781040 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 59-B, ESHWARI PURI COLONY, SAINIKPURI, HYDERABAD, UNDER KUSHAIGUDA P.S. IN THE DISTRICT OF HYDERABAD, TELANGANA, PIN- 500094. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, ASSAM. THROUGH THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M P SARMA, MS H.K. SUMI,MR A CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 21.07.2026 Heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/5 2. Invoking Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the petitioner, namely Mr. K.S.P.V Pavan Kumar, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with ACB Police Station (PS) Case No 24 of 2024, u/s 120(B)/406/409/419/420/468/471 of the IPC r/w section 7(a)/13(2) r/w section 13(1)(a) of P.C Act, 1988. 3. The said case was registered based on an FIR dated 16.03.2024, lodged by Shri Barun Purkayastha from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam. 4. The gist of the allegations is that a tender was floated for the purchase of 129 vehicles for the Assam Project on Forest and Biodiversity Conservation Society (APFBC), of which the petitioner was the then Project Director. 5. It is stated in the FIR that R10.94 crores was funded by Agence Francaise de Développement (AFD) for the purchase of the vehicles and accordingly, after the floating of the tender, 129 vehicles of different makes and models were purchased. There were only two bidders, namely, Industrial Farm and Equipment Private Limited and the SBL Knowledge Services Private Limited. 6. The tender was awarded to SBL Knowledge Services Private Limited. However, it is alleged that it was later found that some of the eligibility documents submitted by the successful bidder were manufactured and forged, including certain documents from Nagaland. 7. It is further alleged that manipulation in the tender process was done to favour the said bidder. In the FIR, 8(eight) persons are named along with unnamed others. The petitioner herein is named as accused No.1 in the FIR and he is stated to be the then Project Director of APFBC. 8. This Court while admitting the instant bail application had rejected the prayer for interim bail. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court which by Order dated 30.06.2026 directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested subject to the condition that he shall Page No.# 3/5 cooperate with the investigation and also observed that the pendency of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the present petitioner will not stand in the way of the High Court proceeding with the main anticipatory bail application. 9. In pursuance to such interim relief granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Order dated 30.06.2026 and the directions passed therein, the deponent has been cooperating with the investigation and to that effect, the deponent appeared before the Investigating Officer of ACB P.S. Case No. 24/2024 on 02.07.2026 and he was thoroughly interrogated and his statement was duly recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case. 10. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner bringing on record the aforesaid facts. In the case of Pradeep N Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr reported in (2025) 2 SCR 2091 cited for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed: “18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre- trial detention. The Court also takes note of the fact that the FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood of Page No.# 4/5 tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory bail is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required, he shall not be taken into custody, subject to conditions imposed hereinafter to ensure his participation in the inquiry process.” 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy, to identify the involvement of other persons, to recover incriminating materials, and to confront the petitioner with documentary and digital evidence collected during investigation. However, it appears that pursuant to interim protection granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner has been thoroughly interrogated. In case any further interrogation is required, there is no bar to the summoning of the petitioner for further interrogation, in the course of which the petitioner can be confronted with any other incriminating material unearthed during the course of investigation. Further, the apprehension of the IO regarding the possibility of the petitioner influencing or intimidating witnesses, or tampering with the documentary or electronic evidence, can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions while allowing the petitioner to remain on pre- arrest bail granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Moreover, since the petitioner is no longer holding the post to which the alleged offence relates, the petitioner would not be in a position to manipulate the official records of the concerned organization. 12. Having regard to the above, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail of Rs 1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority in connection with the aforesaid case. 13. It is further provided that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and appear to the IO as and when called and that he shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any of the witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. Page No.# 5/5 13. Petition stands allowed accordingly. 14. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant