Page No.# 1/15

GAHC010284912025

2026:GAU-AS:1095

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./4131/2025

AMIT JAIN

SON OF SHRI ASHOK KUMAR JAIN @ ASOK KUMAR JAIN

RESIDENT OF 23, SAHEED SURYA SEN ROAD, BERHAMPORE,P.O.

BERHAMPORE, SUB-DIST. BERHAMPUR, DIST. MURSHIDABAD

WEST BENGAL-742101.

VERSUS

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)

REPRESENTED BY THE SC, CBI.

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. B. K. Mahajan, Sr. Adv

Advocate for the respondent : Ms. M. Kumari, SC, CBI

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

Date on which judgment is reserved: 07.01.2026

Date of pronouncement of judgment: 30.01.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of

the operative part of the judgment?: No

Page No.# 2/15

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced: Yes

JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and

also heard Mrs. M. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, CBI.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of

regular bail to the accused applicant in connection with RC-12(A)/2025-

GWH arising out of FIR No.RC0172025A0012 under Section 61 (2) of the

BNSS, 2023 read with Section 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The facts as alleged in the FIR dated 14.10.2025 are, inter alia, that the

informant who was identified as a source had lodged the FIR alleging that

M/s. Mohan Lal Jain, a partnership firm having it’s office in Kolkata, West

Bengal was awarded with the contract of 4-laning of National Highway-37,

between Demow to End of Moran Bypass, in the Dibrugarh District in the

State of Assam on EPC mode, besides other contracts under PMU,

Dibrugarh scheduled to be completed in July, 2024; that the firm could not

complete the construction in timely manner and therefore, applied for

grant of Extension of Time (for short, ‘EoT’) and issuance of Completion

Certification for the said project; that Shri Binod Kumar Jain, the accused

applicant, a representative of the aforesaid firm, informed the co-accused

Shri Maisnam Riten Kumar Singh, ED & RO, NHIDCL, Guwahati (herein

after referred to as “Co-accused”) on 17.09.2025 that since his firm has

already completed the Emergency Landing Facility (for short, ‘ELF’) in

Dibrugarh and also submitted their request for grant of EOT as well as for

Page No.# 3/15

issuance of the Completion Certificate, he wanted to meet the aforesaid

Co-accused; that on 10.10.2025, the accused applicant conveyed to one

Amit Jain, a partner of M/s Mohan Lal Jain that they were required to visit

the aforesaid Co-accused at Guwahati either on 13.10.2025 or

14.10.2025; that the aforesaid Amit Jain conveyed the accused applicant

that they would have to deliver a total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees

Ten Lacs only) as demanded by the aforesaid Coaccused; that the accused

applicant conveyed to the aforesaid Amit Jain that he would be reaching

Guwahati on 14.10.2025 to meet the Coaccused at his office; that there

was every likelihood that the demanded bribe of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees

Ten Lacs) would be delivered by the accused applicant to the Co-accused

on 14.10.2025 at NHIDCL, Regional Office, Guwahati for favourable

issuance of EOT and the Completion Certificate.

4. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, CBI, ACB, Guwahati

registered the FIR on the same date as RC0172025A0012 under Section

61 (2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 7/8/9/10/12 of the PC Act, 1988.

The case No. RC0172025A0012 was renumbered as Case No.

R12(A)/2025-GWH in the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam,

Guwahati.

5. After receipt of the FIR, CBI prepared the Pre-Trap Memorandum (for

short, ‘PTM’) on the same day i.e. 14.10.2025, wherein, name of

particulars of 2 (two) independent witnesses as well as name of

particulars of CBI officials were provided. The PTM reveals that one Shri

Abhimanyu Kumar, PI and Trap Laying Officer (for short, ‘TLO’) led the CBI

team for the trap. The PTM while detailing the factual background behind

the trap, mentioned that there was every likelihood of a bribe of

Page No.# 4/15

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) would be delivered by the accused

applicant to the Co-accused on 14.10.2025 for favourable issuance of the

EoT and the Completion Certificate. Accordingly, a plan was made to lay

the trap to catch the accused persons, namely, Sri Maishram Riten Kumar

Singh (Co-accused) and Shri Binod Kumar Jain (accused applicant) on the

spot while demanding and accepting and handing over of the undue

advantages respectively. After the alleged trap, the CBI team prepared the

Memorandum of Recovery and Seizure on the same date, i.e., 14-10-2025

at about 10.30 AM onwards which revealed that the CBI team reached

Bharalu View Apartment, Santipur, Guwahati at around 10.30 AM. From

there, the team followed a Maruti Ertiga Car to the office of the NHIDCL,

Guwahati situated at GNB Road, opposite AGP Office, Ambari, Guwahati.

At around 10:40 AM, one of the two persons, who rode the aforesaid

vehicle, got down of the Car and he proceeded towards the NHIDCL

Office. It was stated that the source confirmed that the person who

alighted from the above mentioned car was the accused applicant, Shri

Binod Kumar Jain who entered the NHIDCL office to deliver the undue

advantage amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) to the

Coaccused. It was stated that at around 11.35 AM, the source informed

CBI that the accused applicant had delivered the undue advantage to the

Coaccused. On receipt of the information, all the team members of CBI

including the independent witnesses, rushed inside the office of the

Coaccused and on reaching the office of the co-accused, it was alleged

that the middle aged person who had alighted from the Car was seen

coming out of the chamber. When the CBI team intercepted the accused

applicant, the accused applicant introduced himself as Binod Kumar Jain

Page No.# 5/15

and on being challenged that he had handed over the bribe amount to the

Co-accused, he became perplexed and did not utter any word. The

Memorandum also provided that on being asked about the delivery of

illegal gratification amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) to the

Co-accused, the accused applicant confessed the same and begged for

pardon and said that the said amount was lying in the chamber of the

Coaccused. It was also mentioned that the accused applicant stated that

the money was given to the Co-accused for issuance of the Completion

Certificate and Extension of Time for the contract. Thereafter, the CBI

team challenged the Co-accused and the Co-accused too became

perplexed and begged for pardon and the Co-accused stated that he did

not demand the amount from the accused applicant and the amount was

given to him and he had just accepted the same. On search of the drawer

of his office of the Co-accused, they recovered a black colour carry bag

containing 20 bundles of G.C. notes of Rs.500/- each denomination

totalling to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) and the same was

seized by the CBI team. It was mentioned that later on, the Co-accused

admitted that he had taken the bribe in lieu of issuance of the Completion

Certificate and the EoT to the accused applicant, Shri Binod Kumar Jain.

6. That the accused applicant has been arrested on 10.12.2025 and he is

inside the jail for the last 51 days.

7. Mr. Mahajan learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that while

granting bail to the co-accused Binod Kumar Jain, who is the alleged bribe

giver, a Coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 06.11.2025 in

bail application No. 3469/2025 has observed as follows:-

Page No.# 6/15

“16. It is seen from the records that the accused applicant

is a Manager working in the partnership firm, namely, M/s

Mohan Lal Jain located in Kolkata which is involved in

executing certain EPC contracts in Dibrugarh wherein

NHIDCL is also a party representing the Government. It is

also seen that the accused applicant was in fact arrested

from the office of the NHIDCL located in Guwahati.

However, as far as the versions of CBI in the Post Trap

Memorandum i.e. Memorandum of Recovery and Seizure

and the grounds of arrest of CBI provided in Notices under

Section 47 & 48 of BNSS, there is a striking difference

relating to the time of interception and arrest of the

accused applicant by the CBI team. It is apparent on

perusal of the aforesaid documents that though the CBI in

their Grounds of Arrest mentioned that the accused

applicant was caught red handed while bribing the Co-

accused, namely, Maisnam Riten Kumar Singh, however, in

the Post Trap Memorandum i.e. Memorandum of Recovery

and Seizure dated 14.10.2025, it has been specifically

mentioned that the accused applicant was apprehended

while he was coming out of the chamber of the aforesaid

Co-accused. Therefore, these two versions of the CBI do

not say the same thing and therefore, it cannot be prima

facie ascertained, at this stage, as to which version of the

CBI story is correct. In case of trap relating to bribery,

sequence of events is of utmost importance and there

should not be any missing links relating to demand and

acceptance of bribery. In the instant case, after perusal of

the materials, this Court, prima facie, could not find any

substantive material which reveals that the accused

applicant was, in fact, found at the time of delivering the

alleged amount of bribery to the Co-accused. However, this

Court would like to refrain from going much into the details

of the merit of the case at this stage except the materials

to form a prima facie opinion for consideration of the bail

18. Taking into account the whole factual matrix, materials

available before this Court, including the materials in the

Case Diary made available to this Court and also after

hearing the submissions made by the respective counsel

Page No.# 7/15

appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the accused applicant has been able to make

out a prima facie case which merits interference by this

Court. Therefore, this Court, taking the whole aspects in

their entirety, is of the opinion that the accused applicant

should be allowed to go on bail at this stage.”

8. The specific role attributed to the present petitioner is reflected in the

grounds of arrest as follows:-

“There exist clear, cogent, and compelling grounds

to arrest Amit Jain, as substantial material

evidences indicates his active involvement in a

criminal conspiracy with M. Riten Kumar Singh,

Executive Director& Regional Officer, NHIDCL, RO

Guwahati, and his deliberate payment of a bribe of

Rs. 10 lakhs to secure extension of time for an

ongoing public project, thereby constituting

offences under sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of PC Act

1988 (as amended 2018) Prevention of Corruption

Act and 61 (2) of BNS. A recorded conversation

dated 23.09.2025 between Amit Jain and Binod

Jain establishes that Amit Jain was expressly

informed that Rs. 10 lakhs was to be delivered to

M. Riten Kumar Singh and only after his approval,

the bribe was paid by Binod Kumar Jain to

Maisnam Riten Kumar Singh. The voices of Amit

Jain and Binod Jain, contained in the recorded

conversation have been identified by an official of

NHIDCL in presence of an independent witness.

Amit Jain was the main beneficiary of the entire

bribe transactions by way of getting extension of

time of a delayed project. Credible indications

suggest that he has made additional bribe

payments in connection with the project. His voice

Page No.# 8/15

in the recorded conversation has been identified by

an official of NHIDCL, who was working with him,

in the presence of independent witness. His

custodial arrest is essential to prevent tampering

with evidence, influencing witnesses, or

manipulating records related to the project and

bribery transactions. Custodial interrogation is also

necessary to trace the money trail, identify other

conspirators, uncover the full extent of the illegal

gratification network, how much bribe he has paid

earlier and recover critical documentary and

electronic evidence. Searches and Simultaneous

Seizure have revealed that the accused Miasnam

Riten Kumar Singh maintained records of bribe

collections in a diary, which has been seized. The

Diary mentions of undue advantage between M

Riten Kumar Singh and Amit Jain, Partner/Binod

Kumar Jain, representative of M/s Mohan Lal Jain,

the accused firm in the month of October, 2025.

Hence, custodial interrogation is required to fully

unravel the transactions recorded therein. Amit

Jain absconded immediately after the FIR was

registered and sought anticipatory bail under the

CrPC, which was rejected by the Hon'ble Gauhati

High Court, indicating a strong likelihood of further

evasion of arrest if not apprehended. Considering

the gravity of the offences, the involvement of

public funds, the adverse impact on the integrity of

public administration, and the reasonable

apprehension that the accused may obstruct or

prejudice the investigation if at liberty, his arrest is

fully warranted in the interest of a fair, effective,

and unhindered investigation.”

9. Mr. Mahajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits as is his

Page No.# 9/15

statutory right the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail which was

rejected and thereafter, pursuant to notice under Section 35 BNSS, he

appeared before the I.O., whereafter, he was arrested.

10. It is submitted that upon his appearance before the I.O. he did

not implicate himself which is the reason why he was arrested. It is

submitted that under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner cannot compelled to be a witness against himself and merely

because he did not implicate himself the same cannot be termed as no-

cooperation with the investigation necessitating his arrest. The petitioner

was never absconding and the said fact would be evident from the search

list which is dated 14.10.2025 in respect of search carried out in the

residence of the petitioner whether the petitioner was himself present and

the FIR was also lodged on the same date. Further, the petitioner was

remanded to 5 days police custody after his arrest during his which period

no CBI Official came to interrogate him on a single day and even after his

remand to judicial custody, the CBI never sought for interrogation of the

petitioner and therefore, it is crystal clear that his further detention is not

warranted. As far as the merits of the matter is concerned, as far as the

petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that there is no material

whatsoever to connect him with the conspiracy. Learned counsel has

taken the Court through the final report/charge-sheet field by the CBI

where at page No.14, it has been stated as follows:-

“Analysis of these conversations reveals critical insights into

the modus operandi of the accused. In particular, recorded

exchanges dated 17.09.2025, 22.09.2025, and 25.09.2025

between Shri Maisnam Riten Kumar Singh and Shri Binod

Kumar Jain indicate that Shri Riten Kumar Singh repeatedly

Page No.# 10/15

pressurised Shri Binod Kumar Jain to meet him in person,

including during late hours. In a conversation dated

23.09.2025 between Shri Amit Jain and Shri Binod Kumar

Jain, Shri Binod Kumar Jain stated, "Uska phone aaya tha,

usko das dene ka hai." When asked by Shri Amit Jain,

"Kisko?", Shri Binod Kumar Jain replied, "Kumar ko" These

communications strongly indicate that matters related to

the issuance of the Completion Certificate and grant of an

Extension of Time were pending with Shri Riten Kumar

Singh and that he was exerting undue pressure on Shri

Binod Kumar Jain for a personal meeting. Further, the

conversation between Shri Amit Jain and Shri Binod Kumar

Jain implies that abribe of Rs. 10 lakh had been agreed

upon and was to be delivered to Shri Riten Kumar Singh.”

11. It is submitted by Mr. Mahajan, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner that the aforesaid alleged discussion, even if it had taken place

nowhere indicates that the petitioner had entered into a criminal

conspiracy with anyone to pay a bribe of Rs.10,00,000/- to the concerned

official whose name is also not fully mentioned in the alleged

conversation. It is further submitted that what is evident from the Trap

Laying report referred to earlier is that the prosecution could not establish

the factum of acceptance of bribe money by the concerned official and

therefore, no case under Section 7 is made out as held by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta State Vs. (Govt. of N.C.T of

Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 stating that both proof of demand and

acceptance of illegally ratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by

the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the

accused public servant under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d)(i) and (2) of the P.C.

Act.

12. Ms. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, CBI has submitted that

Page No.# 11/15

although the charge-sheet has been submitted in the case, further

investigation is going on to unearth the larger conspiracy involving other

segments of the work in question and material witnesses are yet to be

examined and the FSL report in respect of handwriting, voice sample, CDR

etc. are yet to be received and the petitioner being an influential person is

likely to interfere with the investigation. It is further submitted that the

petitioner had already caused disappearance of his I Phone upon through

which calls were made by him prior to 14.10.2025 as indicated by the CDR

analysis and what he has handed over to the CBI is a Samsung phone

which is not connected to the CDR obtained by the investigating agency

and that the petitioner has destroyed or concealed the said I phone and

thereby, sought to thwart the investigation.

13. In course of her argument, learned counsel for the CBI has

relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy

Vs. Central Bureau of investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439

where it was observed that economic offences constitute a class apart and

need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail as they

involved deep rooted conspiracies causing huge loss of public funds

affecting the economy of the country and thereby causing serious threat

to the financial health of the country. To the same effect are the decisions

of the Apex Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Aditya

Sarda (2025) INSC 447 and Tarun Kumar Assistant Director

Directorate of Enforcement (2023) INSC 1006 relied upon by

learned counsel for CBI. The learned counsel has also relied upon the

decision of The Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai

Hirabhai Makwana reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 which dealt with the

Page No.# 12/15

question of parity with co-accused. The learned counsel has also referred

to the decision of Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. The State

of Punjab reported in (2025) INSC 320, wherein it has been held as

follows:-

“22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central

Bureau of Investigation V.V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scals 15,

wherein this Court expressed thus:

28. While granting bail, the court has to Keep in mind the nature

of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the

severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the

character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the

accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the

accused at the trial. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses

being tampered with, the larger interests of the pubic State and

other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for

the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words

"reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which

means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it

as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and

that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence

in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have

the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt."

14. The above is of course the settled law of the land and there is

no cavil with the proposition that it is not expected at the stage of bail to

have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt. But that does not mean that even in the absence of any cogent

admissible material, the accused is to be denied bail merely because an

economic offence is involved. The Apex Court has held in the number of

Page No.# 13/15

decisions that even statements of co-accused persons implicating the

petitioner cannot be taken into consideration even for the purpose of bail

since they are not admissible as evidence during the trial. In order to

satisfy oneself as to whether there is a genuine case as against the

accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie

evidence in support of the charge, the Court necessarily has to deal with

the material available with the prosecuting agency. To the pointed query

of the Court, as to what is the specific material against the accused

petitioner, other than the call recording of the conversation between the

present petitioner and the co-accused who has already been granted bail,

the response of learned Standing Counsel, CBI remained the same which

is that the further investigation on going and material witnesses ought to

be examined and FSL reports are yet to be received which might reveal a

larger conspiracy. In other words, at present there is no material against

the petitioner other than the record of the conversation between the

aforesaid two persons.

15. Going by the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI, all that is

reflected in the alleged conversation is that the co-accused who is an

employee of the present petitioner informed the petitioner over telephone

that somebody is to be given “Dus” (ten) and to which the petitioner

passed “Kisko”? and the co-accused replied “Kumar ko”. Therefore, as of

date, it is only on the basis of a single word that is “Kisko”, said to have

been uttered by the petitioner in a brief telephonic conversation with the

co-accused that constitutes, according to the I.O., prima facie evidence in

support of the charge. Of course, it is the fond hope of the I.O. that more

material will be unearthed in course of further investigation, but the

Page No.# 14/15

petitioner cannot be detained indefinitely upon an expectation of

discovering further material in the distant future. Coming to the question

of parity, as already noted above, the co-accused i.e. the actual alleged

bribe giver has been granted bail after 23 days in custody and by now, the

present petitioner against whom there is no substantial material has

already spent nearly 50 days in custody and therefore, the principle of

parity squarely applies in the present case and having regard to all of the

above factors, further detention of the petitioner does not appear to be

warranted. The apprehension of the CBI regarding the possibility of

tempering with the evidence can be taken care of imposing by strict

conditions.

16. In the result, the prayer for bail is allowed.

17. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused applicant, namely,

Amit Jain shall be released forthwith on bail on furnishing a bail bond of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupess One Lac) only, with 2 (two) local solvent

sureties of like nature, one of which shall be a Government Servant, to the

satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati subject to

the following conditions:

(a) that the accused applicant shall surrender his

passport to the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam,

Guwahati, if the same is not yet seized by the CBI or not

surrendered before the Special Judge, CBI, Assam,

Guwahati;

(b) that the accused applicant shall fully co-operate with

the investigation of the instant case by CBI;

Page No.# 15/15

(c) that the accused applicant shall make himself

available before the investigating CBI as and when called

for by the CBI;

(d) that the accused applicant shall not try to tamper or

hamper with the investigation of the CBI in the instant

case, in whatsoever manner.

18. The bail application stands disposed of.

19. Return the case diary.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant