Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1585/2026 of PADMA KANTA HAZARIKA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 September 2026
GAHC010120332026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1585/2026 PADMA KANTA HAZARIKA S/O-LATE DAMBARUDHAR HAZARIKA,R/O-3B NIFTY ENCLAVE,SEWALI PATH HATIGAON,P.O AND P.S- HATIGOAN-781006, DIST-KAMRUP METRO,ASSAM
GAHC010120332026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1585/2026
PADMA KANTA HAZARIKA
S/O-LATE DAMBARUDHAR HAZARIKA,R/O-3B NIFTY ENCLAVE,SEWALI
PATH HATIGAON,P.O AND P.S- HATIGOAN-781006, DIST-KAMRUP
METRO,ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. V A CHOWDHURY,MR. D GAGAI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
17.09.2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.
2. This bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is preferred by the accused, namely, Padma Kanta Hazarika, who was arrested in connection with ACB P.S. Case No.30/2023, under Sections 120(B)/406/409 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(a)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for grant of bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Prasanta Borkakati, Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, Guwahati-36, on 21.09.2022. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 21.09.2022, is that one Naren Chandra Basumatary, Padma Kanta Hazarika, Jyotish Saikia, Birinchi Adhikary and Sabaruddin Ahmed were involved in siphoning of a sum of Rs.27,08,719/-, in the name of preparation of detailed project report for submitting to the National Fisheries Development Board, without any instruction from their end and one Anuradha Adhikari Sarma, Padma Kanta Hazarika, Rabindra Nath Deka and Bhagirath Das were involved in causing loss of Rs.1,53,84,517/- due to settlement of Beel Fishery, without adhering to the principle of Government of Assam in the name of Model Beel, which they ought to have settled through tender process, by giving direct settlement and also, one Naren Chandra Basumatary, Anuradha Adhikari Sarma, Padma Kanta Hazarika, Jyotish Saikia, Jyoti Prasad Saikia and Birinchi Adhikary are involved in transferring Rs.11,98,48,619/- without inviting any tender of the development works to various persons in the name of stakeholder and out of the aforesaid amount, they have siphoned out a sum of Rs.27,82,600/- in the name of Barbila Beel Fishery of Nalbari district.
4. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the accused, submits that the accused was arrested in connection with this case and vide interim order dated 15.06.2026, he was granted the privilege of interim bail considering his medical condition, as he has been suffering from cancer. Referring to page No.60 of the petition, Mr. Bora submits that the accused is suffering from bone marrow infiltration by low grade lymphoma, which is a cancer and that he has been cooperating with the investigating agency and that the investigation, in the meantime, might have been completed and custodial detention of the accused may not be required and on such count, he has contended to make the interim order, dated 15.06.2026, absolute, in the same terms and conditions.
5. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional P.P. has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the investigation progressed significantly and that considering the medical condition of the accused, the I.O. has not prayed for his custodial detention.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P.
7. It is not in dispute that the accused was granted the privilege of interim bail vide order dated 15.06.2026, and prior to that he was in jail hazot for 17 days. And further, from the page No.60, it appears that the accused was suffering from bone marrow infiltration by low grade lymphoma, which according to Mr. Bora, is a form of cancer. Further, nothing has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the accused has misused the liberty granted vide interim order dated 15.06.2026 and that he has not been cooperating with the investigating agency.
8. And in that view of the matter and also in view of the medical condition of the accused and further, considering the progress of investigation, custodial detention of the accused seems to be unwarranted here in this case. And accordingly, the interim order dated 15.06.2026, is hereby made absolute in the same terms and conditions.
9. In terms of above, the bail application stands disposed of. The case diary be returned. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE