JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner, namely, Dinesh Jaiswal, who was arrested on 21.10.2022 in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 4/2022 registered under sections 120B/420/406/409/468/471 IPC read with sections 13(1)(a)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is seeking regular bail under section 439 IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for last 111 days.

4. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge-sheet is either incomplete and/or filed in part and therefore, notwithstanding the filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner is entitled to default bail. In the said context, it has been submitted in Para 16.63 of the charge-sheet submitted in this case on 12.01.2023, it has been mentioned as follows:

“Investigation u/s 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is continuing for collecting more evidence against other accused persons as well as arrested accused persons found involved in this case.”

Therefore, it has been submitted that on a plain and simple reading of Para 16.63 of the charge-sheet, it is clear that the investigation is continuing and therefore, incomplete.

5. It has been submitted that if any further material could be subsequently collected, nothing prevented the I.O. to take recourse to the provisions of section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and bring fresh material on record. However, as there is already a mention in the charge-sheet that the investigation is continuing, it is evident that charge-sheet has only been filed in part to frustrate the right of the petitioner to be enlarged on default bail.

6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases: Kamlesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC Online SC 270, Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2013) 3 SCC 77, Chitra Ramakrishna vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through the Investigating Officer, (2022) SCC Online Del 3124, Kamlesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan, 2020 (3) RLW 2507, Subhra Jyoti Bharali vs. The Directorate of Enforcement, Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 488/2022, decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 27.10.2022.

7. The learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and in counter to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the following cases: State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy, 2023 Legal Eagle 40, Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, Ranjit Kumar Borah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, B.A. No. 229/2022, decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 01.04.2022, Samedur Rahman vs. State of Assam, B.A. No. 2718/2019, decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.02.2020 and Dr. Basanta Kumar Doley vs. State of Assam, B.A. No. 176/2019, decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 20.03.2019.

8. At the outset, it may be stated that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the charge-sheet against the petitioner of having connived with certain officials of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and without implementing the requisite de-silting works of drains of Guwahati City as per terms and conditions of the tender documents, raised bills for payment without execution of works, based on false and fabricated weigh bridge slips. As extensive description of manner in which funds of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation has been siphoned-off, only a brief description of the alleged offence committed by the petitioner has been mentioned in this order by avoiding burdening this order with voluminous materials contained in the charge-sheet against the petitioner.

9. The Final Report/Charge-sheet No. 1/2023 dated 11.1.2023 was submitt