Gauhati High Court
Nirmalendu Saha vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) ... on 14 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010059652026
2026:GAU-AS:6651
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./438/2026
NIRMALENDU SAHA
SON OF LATE BALARAM SAHA
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF RAJASHREE APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 104,
PRANAMI MANDIR ROAD, SILIGURI, PIN-734001, WEST BENGAL,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTER NO. P-4, NEHU CAMPUS, SHILLONG-
793022.
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND ANR
ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, (ACB), BETKUCHI, OPPOSITE BALAJI
TEMPLE, GUWAHATI, PIN-781035.
2:R. PRAKASH
IPS
DIG/HEAD OF BRANCH
CBI
ACB
GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, C SARMA,MS. P SAHARIA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. P.Mahanta
Page No.# 2/12
Advocate for the respondent : Ms. M. Kumari
Date on which judgment is reserved: N/A
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment : Full judgment.
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced : Yes
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard learned Counsel Mr. P. Mahanta for the Petitioners, Nirmalendu Saha who is the petitioner of Criminal Petition No.438/2026 and Pranjal Sharma, the petitioner of Criminal Petition No. 441/ 2026. Nirmalendu Saha was a Professor of the NEHU University, whereas Pranjal Sharma was a businessman. Charge sheet has been laid against both the petitioners, Nirmalendu Saha and Pranjal Sharma and both the petitioners have filed the aforementioned petitions to quash the charge sheet laid against them with an additional prayer to quash the FIR lodged against them. Both the petitions are taken up together as the petitions stem from the same cause of action
2. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, CBI Ms. M. Kumari that the genesis of the case is that both the accused petitioners, Nirmalendu Saha and Pranjal Sarma are alleged to have been involved in engaging in corrupt financial practices for supply of contractual work to the supplier Pranjal Sharma Page No.# 3/12 by Nirmalendu Saha who was the Head of Department of Zoology at the time of his retirement from North Eastern Hill University, Shillong (NEHU). Charge sheet has been laid against both the accused petitioners Nirmalendu Saha and Pranjal Sharma. Charges are succinctly described as follows:-
3. Professor Nirmalendu Saha joined as Lecturer of the NEHU in the year 1988 and was working as Dean of School of Life Sciences with four departments under him viz.:
Department of Botany, Department of Zoology, Department of Chemistry Department of Biotechnology & Bioinformatics.
3.1. He was the academic head of these departments, whereas the other accused petitioner, Pranjal Sharma, established one Company, namely M/s Molbiogen on 27.01.2014 in Guwahati. Both the petitioners will be referred to by their names for the sake of brevity. Pranjal Sama's company dealt with supply of Laboratory items related to research in biology, physics and chemistry, equipment/object/material and machines through GeM, but if the materials were not available on GeM, NEHU used to purchase it through tender. Every department has a Local Purchase committee consisting of 3 to 4 HoD or professors to purchase the items as per requirements of the department as per rules/regulation of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. In the Department of Zoology, there was a local purchase committee in which Professor S. R. Hajong was the Chairperson and the present petitioner, Nirmalendu Saha was a Member.
Page No.# 4/12 3.2 It was also alleged and charged that during the financial years 2024-2025, M/s. Molbiogen, Guwahati supplied articles amounting to Rs.2,10,685/- and at that time relating to the supply of the articles Nirmalendu Saha was the Principal Investigator, Department of Zoology. Again, in the same financial year, 2024-25, M/s. Molbiogen supplied articles amounting to Rs.2,48,995/- and Professor Nirmalendu Saha was also a Principal Investigator of the SERB project. Another set of articles amounting to Rs. 2,30,100 for the period 2024-2026 was supplied by Pranjal Sharma through his Company, M/s. Molbiogen. It is also alleged that Pranjal Sharma was continuously the lowest bidder in the tenders floated under the supervision of the Principal Investigator, Nirmalendu Saha.
3.3. It is alleged and charged that Nirmalendu Saha was about to retire on 31.12.2025 and he demanded an undue gratification of Rs. 3,43,000/- as reward from co-accused Pranjal Sharma for favouring him with allocation of multiple orders. The place where the undue gratification was to be handed over was a guest house in the Guwahati University campus.
3.4 It is also alleged and charged that due to his nefarious activities Pranjal Sharma was always under surveillance of the CBI and his phone was intercepted.
3.5. The presence of Nirmalendu Saha was established in the guest house of Guwahati University from 10.06.2025 to 12.06.2025. Conversations between Nirmalendu Saha and Pranjal Sharma were intercepted and the investigation agency could track the conversations between both the accused petitioners.
Page No.# 5/12 3.6. It was unearthed by the investigating agency that during his stay in the guest house, Nirmalendu Saha contacted Pranjal Sharma and through their conversations, it was agreed between both the petitioners/ accused that Pranjal Sharma would meet him at the guest house early in the morning of 12 th June, 2025.
3.7. It is alleged and charged that investigation further established that both the accused were indulging in corrupt and illegal practices and in pursuance thereof, Pranjal Sharma was facilitating Nirmalendu Saha to obtain undue advantage against award of supply orders of scientific equipment, laboratory items, etc. and clearance of bills thereof.
3.8. It is also alleged and charged that on following Pranjal Sharma up to the guest house by 7 members of the investigating team including independent witnesses, Pranjal Sharma was seen visiting Nirmalendu Saha in his room where he was staying in the university guest house, on the evening of 12.06.2025. Pranjal Sarma was seen carrying a purple blue coloured plastic packet and he went into the room of Nirmalendu Saha in the guest house. He was also seen by the investigating team, including independent witnesses, leaving the room and while leaving the room, Pranjal Sharma's hands were empty.
3.9. It is also alleged and charged that while Pranjal Sharma was proceeding towards Beltola, he was intercepted, and there the investigating team, through a controlled call, directed Pranjal Sharma to call Nirmalendu Saha to inquire about the money that he had paid to the petitioner, Nirmalendu Saha. The answers of the petitioner, Nirmalendu Saha was not controlled and his answers clearly revealed that he had accepted the money which he assured that he Page No.# 6/12 would later count. Thereafter, the investigating team went to the guest house and entered into the petitioner Nirmalendu Saha's room and opened the bag. Money was recovered and the money along with the plastic packet and the trolley bag was also seized. On finding sufficient materials, the voice samples were also taken and sent for forensic test and forensic report is awaited. However, on finding sufficient materials, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner Nirmalendu Saha under Section 7 and of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [(as amended in 2018) (PC Act for short)] and Pranjal Sharma under Section 8 of the PC Act.
3.10. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that while intercepting the petitioner Pranjal Sharma, due process of law was followed and also while arresting the petitioner Nirmalendu Saha due procedure of law was followed.
4. Now both the petitioners are before this Court with prayer for quashing the FIR No. RC0172025A0005, the CBI case No. RC 5(A)/2015 and the Charge sheet No.38/2025 dated 18.12.2025.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the time the FIR was registered, several sections were included, but as no materials were found, erroneously charge sheet u/s Sections 7 and 8 was laid against both the accused persons. It is further submitted that earlier this case was registered under Section 61-(2) of the BNS 2023, and under Section 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act, but charge sheet was submitted only under Sections 7 and 8 of the PC Act.
6. It is further contended that CBI has also admitted about the relationship Page No.# 7/12 between both the petitioners. They are close acquaintances and charge sheet at paragraph 16.6. also reflects that petitioner Nirmalendu Saha was acquainted to Pranjal Sharma. The conversations over phone, intercepted by the investigating agency are nothing but conversations between two family friends. The CBI has misinterpreted certain conversations between the petitioners to be conversations dealing in undue gratification between both the accused petitioners.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the argument of the learned Standing counsel, CBI that paragraph 16.13 of the charge sheet clearly reveals that Pranjal Sharma used to enquire from the staff of the university relating to his bills holds no water. It is submitted that any contractor would enquire about his bills when the bills are kept pending for a prolonged period. It is falsely alleged that as Pranjal Sharma had to wait for the approval of the bills, he used to pay gratification to the head of the department, i.e. Mr. Nimalendu Saha, for clearance of pending bills and for procurement of tender in his favour. As the grounds of arrest are contradictory to the charge relating to the interception of Pranjal Sharma, vis-a-vis apprehending Pranjal Sharma, red-handed, the FIR as well as the charge sheet is liable to be set aside and quashed. There is no vested interest between both the accused person and there is no nexus between both the accused persons/ petitioners and thus the argument of the learned Standing Counsel holds no water.
8. In reply to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for CBI submitted that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the affidavit relating to the conversations regarding money transactions in Bengali and the earlier conversations in the Page No.# 8/12 charge-sheet in Assamese cannot be assessed and scrutinized at this juncture. All the conversations and the nitty gritties of this case may be taken up at the stage on hearing of charge or at the stage of evidence. It is submitted that it has been held in a catena of decisions that a roving inquiry cannot be made while dealing with the petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.PC and the evidence cannot be assessed like a mini trial. A prima facie case is sufficient to proceed against the petitioners.
9. The learned Standing Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr in connection with (SLP) Criminal Appeal No. 1500/2024 and in (SLP) Criminal Appeal No. 1660/2024 , wherein vide order dated 06.08.2024, it has been held that:-
"This Court in a series of judgments has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in the case of CBI vs Aryan Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 379). Relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted here under:
"Para 10 As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.
At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr PC., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".
10. The learned Standing Counsel has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai City-I Page No.# 9/12 Department Vs. G. Easwaran in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 1405/2019, wherein it has been held that:-
In a later decision in Renu Kumari v. Sanjay Kumar where the High Court had entertained and allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC in similar circumstances to quash the proceedings after a petition for discharge was dismissed by the Magistrate and the subsequent revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, this Court set aside the High Court's quashing order and held as follows:
9. In R. P Kapur v. State of Punjab this Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) (where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction,
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged,
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. (AIR p. 869) In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge... It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with...."
Page No.# 10/12
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it has been held at para 102 that:-
" 102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which w6e have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
***** ***** ***** (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
***** ***** ***** (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior Page No.# 11/12 motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
12. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the charge-sheet marked as Annexure-3 of the petition.
13. At this juncture, it cannot be conclusively decided if no case lies against the petitioners. The petitioners can place their case before the learned Trial Court at the time of framing of charges. The learned Trial Court would be able to assess the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. At this stage, it cannot be ruled out that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners despite the fact that it has been submitted that the petitioners are close acquaintances and their phone conversations cannot be misinterpreted in such a way to rope in both the petitioners as guilty of offence under Section 7 or Section 8 of the P.C. Act.
14. This Court has not delved into the merits of the case and has not dealt with the evidence and the discrepancies projected by the petitioners. This case is at the initial stage of trial and at the very threshold, this case cannot be stifled by assessing the evidence projected by the petitioners.
15. I find force in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that this is a case relating to an economic offence and the petitioners can place their case at the stage of evidence and also the petitioners will get enough opportunity to place their case at the time of framing of charge.
16. The learned Standing Counsel Ms. M. Kumari has also relied on the decision of Bhajan Lal & Ors (supra).
17. At this juncture, there appears to be a prima facie case and no malafide is discernible, at least at this stage. While exercising jurisdiction under Section Page No.# 12/12 482 of the CrPC/ 528 of the BNSS, this court would not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the materials collected in question are reliable or not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the materials or the evidence, the accusations against the petitioners are not sustainable. It is indeed the function of the trial judge to ascertain if the materials warrant conviction.
18. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh (Supra), G. Easwaran(Supra) and Bhajan Lal & Ors(Supra) both the petitions, i.e. Criminal Petition No.438/2026 and Criminal Petition No. 441/ 2026 are hereby dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant