GAHC010257772025 2025:GAU-AS:15956

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : AB/2754/2025 MONALISA GOSWAMI

SON OF UTPAL GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 27, JOYPUR,

KHARGULI, P.S. LATASIL, GUWAHATI - 781004, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MR. A BORPUZARI,MR. M MORE,MR. P K

SHARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

O R D E R

24.11.2025

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr.

M. More, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. G. Barman, learned

Assistant Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance Cell.

2. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, Monalisa Goswami, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13/2025, registered under Section 120B/406/409/420/467/468/471 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) /13(2) and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. This is a subsequent bail petition as an earlier bail petition was rejected by this Court on 29.10.2025 after perusal of case diary. A copy of the said order is annexed with this bail petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in this subsequent petition, he is not on the merits of the case which was already gone into by this Court in the earlier bail petition at that stage of investigation. It is contended that the petitioner in this subsequent bail petition is seeking bail mainly on health grounds of her husband contending that the husband of the petitioner aged about 69 years is a patient of prostate cancer and he is suffering from some complications for which his family is desirous of taking him to New Delhi for better treatment. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel has drawn my attention to medical documents dated 03.11.2025 from Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor CM Vigilance Cell submits that there is a development in the investigation as well as two co-accused have been arrested. He submits that he shall procure the case diary by Monday, if directed. 6. The updated case diary as called for has been received along with an elaborate bail objection dated 21.11.2025 contending that the present accused petitioner is the prime accused of the case and the mastermind behind the manipulated recruitment process as the then Director, Tourism Department. It is contented that the investigation has revealed sufficient and significant incriminating materials against the present petitioner.

7. It is contented that the present petitioner as the then Director Tourism facilitated the manipulation of the recruitment process to select favored candidates and deprived from selection, candidates who had actually secured better performance. The I.O. has contended that - personal circumstances, however, sympathy cannot override the seriousness of the offense or absolve the petitioner of criminal liability.

8. Though, there is progress in investigation, the same is stated to be a crucial stage and as the prime accused, the custodial examination of the petitioner is stated to be necessary for the proper investigation. As stated earlier, the petitioner in this bail petition is seeking bail mainly on health grounds of her husband and for taking him to Delhi for further treatment.

9. Needless to say that the aspect of such health condition of the petitioner’s husband, who is a cancer patient and the treatment required to be given to him is an However, the question before this court is - at this crucial state of investigation, whether the said considerations should prevail over the interest of investigation or whether the personal situation should give way to the larger interest of the investigation and the society. The same is contended by the I.O in his bail o