Gauhati High Court
Pranjal Sharma vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) … on 14 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010059642026
2026:GAU-AS:6652
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./441/2026
PRANJAL SHARMA
S/O LATE PADMADHAR SARMA,
R/O HOUSEN O. 11, LEFT KO BYE LANE NO. 5, BISHNU RABHA PATH,
BELTOLA, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781028
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND ANR
REP. BY SC, CBI
ANTI -CORRUUPTIN 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.# 11/12motive 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
