Dismissed¶71

Tanbir Yusuf Ahmed v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC5 May 2025Bail Appln./1228/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court 2025 bail rejection; Section 483 BNSS 2023 regular bail; Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 12, 13(1)(b), 13(2); disproportionate assets 197.12%; economic offence class apart; P. Chidambaram (2019) 9 SCC 24 relied on; custodial interrogation necessary; Arnesh Kumar notice Sections 41/41A CrPC Section 35(3) BNSS; benami transactions; witness influence from jail; Vigilance P.S. Case 08/2025 Guwahati; Circle Officer Dalgaon; Tanbir Yusuf Ahmed v. State of Assam.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the case diary, the court found serious allegations of corruption; following a preliminary enquiry an FIR was registered containing detailed computations of the petitioner's assets, income and expenditures, and upon audit his assets were found disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 197.12%.

Tanbir Yusuf Ahmed Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused/petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 08/2025 registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

¶45

Ratio / Principle

When the police visited the petitioner's residence, a significant number of documents, including passbooks and bank records, were found discarded in an open field, from where some of them were recovered by the IO.

¶45

Key takeaways

The IO reported that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, and there are allegations that he is attempting to influence witnesses even from jail premises.ratio¶46
Money was transferred into the accounts of the petitioner's mother, wife and other relatives, some properties were allegedly acquired through benami transactions, several undisclosed aspects remain requiring further investigation, and there is a legitimate concern that if released on bail the petitioner may liquidate or dispose of assets yet to be recovered.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Appln./1228/2025, Gauhati High Court (Mitali Thakuria, J.), order dated 06.05.2025: Application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by Tanbir Yusuf Ahmed, posted as Circle Officer, Dalgaon, arrested on 04.04.2025 in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 08/2025 registered under Sections 12, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, seeking regular bail. The petitioner contended absence of Arnesh Kumar notice (Sections 41/41A Cr.P.C.; Section 35(3) BNSS), seizure of all documents including bank records, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The prosecution opposed, reporting assets disproportionate to known sources of income by 197.12% (check period February 2019 to December 2024), non-cooperation, attempts to influence witnesses from jail, benami acquisitions, and risk of liquidation of unrecovered assets. Relying on P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 (economic offences constitute a class apart), the court held custodial interrogation necessary for further investigation to disclose uncovered facts and rejected the bail petition; the application was disposed of and the case diary ordered returned.

Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010083352025

2025:GAU-AS:5612

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./1228/2025

¶6

TANBIR YUSUF AHMED S/O-SALAH UDDIN AHMED, R/O-JYOTI PRASAD AGARWALA PATH,P.S-HATIGAON,GUWAHATI781028,DIST-KAMRUP (M),ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K P PATHAK, F. K. AHMED

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SPECIAL PP, CM's VIGILANCE

¶11

Page No.# 2/13

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER

¶13

06.05.2025

¶14

Heard Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. F. K. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM’s Vigilance, for the State respondent.

¶15

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested on o4.04.2025 in connection with Vigilance P. S. Case No.08/2025, registered under Sections 12, 13(1) (b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶16

3. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same.

¶17

4. It is submitted by Mr. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel, that the present accused/petitioner is a very meritorious student. After completing his B. Tech from the NIT, Silchar, he joined the company called Infosys Ltd. However, as his mother was diagnosed with cancer and his father also suffered from a heart ailment, the petitioner, leaving his lucrative job, had to return to Assam with the intention of settling down permanently to care for his ailing parents. Thereafter, he appeared in the Assam Civil Services Examination, 2017, and was accordingly selected and appointed in 2019. At the relevant time of the incident, he was posted as Circle Officer, Dalgaon, Darrang District. While serving at Dalgaon, he fell in love with a Hindu girl who was also serving as a Circle Officer at Sipajhar, within the same district, and they eventually got married on 18.12.2024. Shortly thereafter, in early January 2025, the highest executive authority of the State

¶18

Page No.# 3/13

¶19

expressed disapproval of such an inter-religious marriage between administrative officers and ordered an inquiry against the petitioner and his brother [accused/petitioner in Bail Application Case No.1227/2025]. Subsequently, following an enquiry directed by the highest administrative authority, the Chief Minister’s Special Vigilance Cell (SVC) filed an FIR against the petitioner on 03.04.2025 and arrested him in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 8/2025. He was thereafter produced before the remanding Magistrate on 05.04.2025. He further submits that the petitioner was never served with a notice under Sections 41 and 41(a) of the Cr.P.C. [corresponding to Section 35(3) of the BNSS], which is a violation of the mandate of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar , reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

¶20

5. Thereafter, the petitioner was remanded to police custody for three days. Upon the expiry of the initial remand period, he was produced before the learned remanding Magistrate, and, upon a prayer made by the IO, a further two days of police remand was granted. On 10.04.2025, a bail application was moved before the learned remanding Magistrate, but the same was rejected, and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody till 22.04.2025. Subsequently, he was further remanded to judicial custody till 06.05.2025.

¶21

6. Mr. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that from the forwarding report, it appears that the bank accounts of the petitioner, including those of his parents and wife, have been seized by the police. The case has been registered under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, and not under Section 13(1)(a) of the said Act. Thus, there is no likelihood of tampering with the bank accounts, and the transaction details have already been seized by the IO. Moreover, the IO did not seek further police

¶22

Page No.# 4/13

¶23

remand of the petitioner, which indicates that the investigation is nearly complete, and his custodial interrogation is no longer necessary rather it violates the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

7. In support of his submissions, Mr. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions:

¶25

i. Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , reported in 2018 (3) SCC 22, wherein the Court reiterated that bail should not be denied mechanically, especially for accused with no history of absconding or tampering, even in serious cases.

¶26

ii. Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in 2013 (&) SCC 466, wherein, also the Court observed that in a case of disproportionate assets case, the Court granted bail, noting that liberty of bail cannot be curtailed based on unsubstantiated financial allegations.

¶27

iii. B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in 2014 (13) SCC 55, wherein also, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the charges under PCA require concrete evidence of criminal misconduct, not mere financial transactions, to sustain a conviction or deny bail.

¶28

iv. P. Nallammal & Anr. vs. State represented by Inspector of Police , reported in 1999 (6) SCC 559, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that mens rea is essential for PCA offences, and mere possession of assets or transactions does not imply criminality.

¶29

v. P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. , reported in 2015 (10) SCC 152, wherein also, the Court emphasized that PCA charges require proof of corrupt intent, and routing

¶30

Page No.# 5/13

¶31

financial dealings without evidence of misconduct are insufficient.

¶32

vi. Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. , reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down the direction for investigation agencies and also the Courts in respect of Section 439 of Cr.P.C which have been violated in the instant case both by the IO and the remanding magistrate.

¶33

8. He further relied on another decision passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in W.P.(Crl) 20/2024 [ Shri Gurmej Singh Batth vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. ], wherein, also the said Bench has dealt with the inter play between Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Preventive detention order whereby the detention order was set aside by the said Court.

¶34

9. He further submitted that there is no evidence or proof against the petitioner indicating that he has acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income, as alleged in the FIR. Moreover, from the record, it appears that almost all the relevant documents, including the bank passbook and other documentary evidence, have already been collected by the Investigating Officer.

¶35

10. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) seized from the bank account of the petitioner's mother was deposited therein as compensation, as some of her paternal property was acquired by the Government. He also submits that all relevant documents, including bank account details, have already been seized by the police, and therefore, further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner, being a permanent resident of the locality, is willing to extend full cooperation in the ongoing investigation, if he is granted the privilege of bail. Further, keeping

¶36

Page No.# 6/13

¶37

the petitioner in custody would serve no constructive purpose and would merely satisfy the sadistic pleasure of the investigating officer. Furthermore, as the case is entirely based on documentary evidence, and the IO has already seized or recovered all relevant documents, including the bank passbook, further detention of the petitioner is not required in the interest of the investigation. The petitioner is also ready to comply with all terms and conditions of bail, if granted the privilege thereof.

¶38

11. On the other hand, Mr. Dutta, learned Special Public Prosecutor, submits that prior to the lodging of the FIR, a preliminary enquiry was initiated with Government approval. After the FIR was lodged, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the IO which revealed that the petitioner was in possession of assets and property disproportionate to his known sources of income, with the percentage of disproportion calculated at 197.12%. The petitioner joined government service in 2019, and hence, the check period was considered from February 2019 to December 2024. After accounting for his income, expenditures, and other financial transactions, it was found that his assets were disproportionate by 197.12%. Furthermore, the offence under which the case has been registered carries a punishment of more than seven years, and therefore, the requirement of issuing a notice under Sections 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C. [corresponding to Section 35(3) of the BNSS] does not arise. The FIR contains a detailed statement of the petitioner’s assets, income, and expenditures, prepared after a proper audit of official accounts.

¶39

12. He further submits that, during interrogation, the IO recorded a conversation between the accused/petitioner and his staff concerning his involvement in collecting corruption money while serving at the Dalgaon Revenue Circle. Also, the accused/petitioner was unable to satisfactorily explain

¶40

Page No.# 7/13

¶41

the source of his assets. It is an admitted fact that he has no other source of income except his government salary. Also, no amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was paid to the petitioner’s mother as compensation for any ancestral property, as she had already been allotted other land. Hence, the claim of compensation does not arise. However, the mother’s family members admitted to having received Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs as compensation for acquired land. Further, the investigation also revealed that a large sum of money had been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner’s mother at Punjab National Bank, which was subsequently transferred to the petitioner’s HDFC Bank account. Mr. Dutta submits that this finding is based on witness statements available in the case diary, contradicting the petitioner’s claim regarding the Rs. 20 lakhs payment. He further states that several witnesses, in their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., have detailed how the petitioner accumulated assets through various transactions, including benami transactions. Moreover, serious allegations have emerged that the petitioner is still attempting to influence witnesses even from jail, and is trying to hamper and tamper with the ongoing investigation. These claims have been specifically stated by witnesses during their Section 161 Cr.P.C. depositions.

¶42

13. Mr. Dutta, learned Special Public Prosecutor, also submitted that the entire offence comes under the socio-economic offence and is constituted a class apart and hence, a different approach is needed while considering the bail application in such economic offences. He further submitted that such kind of offence will affect the entire society. He also submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pertaining to a decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court [ Gurmej Singh Batth (supra)], is not applicable in the present case, as the said judgment was delivered in the context of a

¶43

Page No.# 8/13

¶44

preventive detention matter. Accordingly, he submits that this is not a fit case for granting bail, as the investigation is still ongoing, and further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is necessary in the interest of justice.

¶45

14. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the case diary along with the annexures appended to the petition and the bail objection filed by the IO. It appears that there are serious allegations of corruption, and following a preliminary enquiry, an FIR was registered. The FIR contains detailed computations relating to the petitioner’s assets, income, and expenditures. Upon audit of his financial records, it has been found that the petitioner possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, to the extent of 197.12%. Furthermore, during the preliminary enquiry, it came to light that the petitioner has corrupted a huge some of amount by engaging his staff. From the materials available in the case diary, it is also noted that when the police visited the residence of the petitioner, a significant number of documents, including passbooks and bank records, were found discarded in an open field, from where some of them were recovered by the IO.

¶46

15. Further, the IO has reported that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. There are also allegations that the petitioner is attempting to influence witnesses even from jail premises. It further appears from the record that, apart from depositing funds into his own bank account, the petitioner has transferred money into the accounts of his mother, wife, and other relatives. Some properties are also alleged to have been acquired through benami transactions. While it is true that some documents have already been seized during the investigation, there remain several undisclosed aspects which, according to the IO, require further investigation. There is also a legitimate

¶47

Page No.# 9/13

¶48

concern that, if released on bail, the petitioner may liquidate or dispose of assets that are yet to be recovered.

¶49

16. In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement , reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Hon’ble Apex Court, on paragraph- 75, 78, 79, 80, 81 83, reads as under:

¶50

“...74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v. Anil Sharma, the Supreme Court held as under:-

¶51

“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument

¶52

Page No.# 10/13

¶53

can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

¶54

” 75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., it was held as under:

¶55

“19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate,

¶56

Page No.# 11/13

¶57

be done under Section 438 of the Code.

¶58

Economic offences

¶59

Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain (1998) 2 SCC 105, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶60

The learned Solicitor General submitted that the “Scheduled offence” and “offence of money laundering” are independent of each other and PMLA being a special enactment applicable to the offence of money laundering is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Solicitor General submitted that money laundering being an economic offence committed with much planning and deliberate design poses a serious threat to the nation’s economy and financial integrity and in order to unearth the laundering and trail of money, custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary.

¶61

Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under:-

¶62

“5. ….The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate

¶63

Page No.# 12/13

¶64

design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest…..”

¶65

Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:-

¶66

“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

¶67

While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, 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 public/State and other similar considerations.”

¶68

Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate

¶69

Page No.# 13/13

¶70

the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.”

¶71

17. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the materials available in the case diary, and the specific objections raised by the IO, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is necessary for further investigation to disclosed uncovered facts. Accordingly, this is not a fit case for the grant of regular bail at this stage, and the bail petition is hereby rejected.

¶72

18. In view of above, this Bail application stands disposed of.

¶73

19. Case Diary be returned.

¶74

JUDGE

¶75

Comparing Assistant

Tanbir Yusuf Ahmed v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanbir Yusuf Ahmed v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Monaf Vs the State of Assam

MD Noor Mohammad Vs the State of Assam

Habibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Rasmil Ali @ Babuli Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

MD Roijuddin @ Rohiz Uddin Vs the State of Assam

MD Rajikul Islam@ Rajikul Isalam Vs the State of Assam