Sri Sanjay Tamuly vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the privilege of bail at this stage. The Court considered the principles governing bail, including the nature of accusations, gravity of the charge, severity of punishment, danger of absconding, character and standing of the accused, likelihood of tampering with witnesses or evidence, and the larger interests of the public or State. It noted that the investigation against the petitioner was complete, and a charge sheet had been filed. The Court found that the case was primarily based on documentary and electronic evidence, which had already been seized, minimizing the risk of tampering. The petitioner, being a government servant, was deemed not to be a flight risk and unlikely to influence witnesses due to his position. The Court also acknowledged that the trial was likely to be delayed due to the ongoing investigation against other accused and the large number of prosecution witnesses. Balancing the petitioner's right to personal liberty with the interests of the State, the Court granted bail on stringent conditions, including furnishing a bail bond, cooperating with the investigation and trial, not influencing witnesses, and depositing his passport.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Sanjay Tamuly, a Sub Divisional Fisheries Development Officer (SDFDO), was arrested on October 28, 2025, in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 16/2025. The case was registered under Sections 120B/468/471/420/409 IPC following an FIR lodged on September 8, 2025. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with others, facilitated the fraudulent transfer of approximately Rs. 2,64,48,160/- from the Fishery Mission Society account between June 2021 and March 2024, by forging signatures. These funds were allegedly transferred to accounts of his relatives and local associates. The anomaly was detected on August 18, 2025. The petitioner has been in custody for approximately 10 months, and a charge sheet was filed on January 22, 2026. Charges are yet to be framed as the investigation against co-accused is ongoing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the period of detention and the stage of the investigation, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023? The petitioner argued that since the investigation against him is complete and a charge sheet has been filed, his continued detention is not justified, especially considering the approximately 10 months he has already spent in custody. He contended that as a government servant, he is not a flight risk and, given the documentary nature of the evidence, the likelihood of tampering is minimal. The petitioner relied on principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI, Vinit Jain Vs Union of India, Ashutosh Garg Vs Union of India, and Ratnambar Kaushik Vs Union of India. The respondent, the State of Assam, represented by the Public Prosecutor, argued that the alleged offences are of a serious nature, potentially jeopardizing the economy.