Dismissed

Paban Manta v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC15 May 2019AB/605/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The Court noted ongoing investigation into alleged corruption concerning government funds. Finding the case diary revealed procedural lapses and the investigation continuing, the Court held it was too early to form a prima facie view in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail application dismissed in the interests of justice pending conclusion of investigation.

Paban Manta Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010044512019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 605/2019

¶5

1:PABAN MANTA S/O. LT. AMRIT MANTA, R/O. WARD NO. 6, MORIGAON TOWN, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM.

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P N GOSWAMI

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 15-05-2019

¶13

Heard Mr. PN Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶14

By this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely , Paban Manta has prayed for granting him pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Morigaon PS Case No. 266 of 2018 under Section 120B/409 of the IPC, read with Sections 13(1) d/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶15

Case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

¶16

Mr. PN Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the informant is a

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

private person and he lodged the FIR, without knowing the procedure and process, the Tiwa Autonomous Council (TAC) had undertaken while awarding the supply orders to the bidders. Mr. Goswami has emphatically drawn this Court’s attention to the various resolutions adopted in the Council’s budget Session held on 10.01.2018 in this regard and submits that the implementation of the various schemes was done as per the provisions of Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act ( AFRBM Act’), 2005 and as such, there was no irregularity or corruption in the process of award of the contract. Mr. Goswami also submits that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary as he has given his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted all relevant documents to the investigating Officer.

¶19

Per Contra, Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Addl.P.P., Assam submits that the case diary reveals that the entire process of utilization of the Govt. fund for various developmental schemes of TAC were done without following the CVC guidelines and the provisions of AFRBM, Act, 2005 as there was no tender process at all.

¶20

The FIR, dated 11.06.2018, lodged by one Bubul Bordoloi before the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon revealed the allegation, inter-alia, that the petitioner, Chief Executive Member, TAC and 9 (Nine) others indulged in rampant corruption in respect of fund of Rs. 36 Crores, sanctioned by the Govt. of Assam under the WPT & BC Department during the financial year, 2017-18, pertaining to implementation of the developmental schemes under the TAC.

¶21

On scrutiny of the case diary, it appears that the budget session of the TAC held on 10.01.2018 adopted a resolution to implement the allotted fund for the financial year 2017-18 by constituting Construction Committees and decided to release 60% of fund in advance for implementation of the schemes pending release of the rest 40% fund only after execution of the works. However, prima facie, no prescribed tender procedure as per the CVC guidelines and the provisions of the AFRBM Act, 2005 were followed. Although the petitioner has disputed the facts alleged in the FIR, this Court finds that it is too early to form even a prima facie view over the whole matter of alleged corruption as the investigation is still continuing.

¶22

Therefore, this Court finds that in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances that emerged from the case diary, it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed.

¶26

Return the case diary.

¶27

This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Paban Manta v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paban Manta v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nipul Talukdar Vs the State of Assam

Ringbhon Thousen Vs the State of Assam

Azahar Ali Vs the State of Assam

Ajoy Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Ritupon Gogoi @ Apu Vs the State of Assam

Ismail Sk. @ Md. Ismail Sk. @ Kala Vs the State of Assam