Gauhati High Court
Tanuj Sonowal vs The State Of Assam on 7 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010140212026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1528/2026
TANUJ SONOWAL
S/O RAMESH SONOWAL
R/O LEZAI BARUAH GAON,.S. BORBARUAH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MISS. P M
AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
07.07.2026
1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State of Assam.
2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Page No.# 2/4
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely,
Tanuj Sonowal, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with
Barbaruah P.S. Case No. 43/2026, under Sections
316(5)/318(4)/336(2)/340(2)/61(2)(a)/3(5) of BNS, read with Section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 26.06.2026, the
Block Development Officer of Barbaruah Development Block, Dibrugarh
had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Barbaruah Police
Station, inter alia, alleging that serious financial irregularity and suspected
misappropriation of Government Funds by the petitioner, Tanuj Sonowal,
who was engaged as computer assistant Bogibeel Gaon Panchayat and
Dulia Kakoti Gaon Panchayat has come to light during social audit and
subsequent departmental verification of records.
4. It is alleged that unauthorized Indira Awas Yojana wage bills
were generated in the names of beneficiaries whose IAY houses had
already been completed and closed in the year 2017.
5. It is suspected that financial irregularity to the tune of Rs.
40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs) only is involved in this case.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is presently working as a computer assistant in Dulia Kakoti
Gaon Panchayat and the accusation made against him in the FIR are not
true. He submits that it is apparent from the letter dated 04.06.2026, of
the present computer assistant Barnali Yein of Bogibeel Gaon Panchayat,
who has first flagged the issue of unauthorized wage demands bills made
Page No.# 3/4
in respect of Indira Awas Yojana.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
aforesaid letter dated 04.06.2026, it has been clearly mentioned that the
computers used for generating the bills had passwords and all the
computer assistants under Barbaruah Development Block were using the
same computer passwords and, therefore, it is unable to tell as to who
carried out these activities. He further submits that in the letter addressed
to the Block Development Officer on 05.06.2026 though accusation has
been made against the present petitioner, however, no basis of that
accusation has been spelt out there. He further submits that the petitioner
is presently working as computer assistant has not been put under
suspension and he is ready to co-operate in the investigation. However, if
he is arrested in the aforesaid case, his career may be jeopardised and,
therefore, he prays for granting interim anticipatory bail.
8. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of any interim protection at this
stage. He submits that there are categorical accusation made against the
present petitioner in the FIR and hence, without perusal of the Case Diary
the veracity or otherwise of the allegations cannot be ascertained at this
stage. He further submits that the accusation made against the present
petitioner are categorical in as much as he without the knowledge
approval or information of any concerned officials or staff members of the
respective gaon panchayat has generated Indira Awas Yojana wage bills
over last several months in the names of beneficiaries, whose houses have
already been completed appropriately 11 years ago.
Page No.# 4/4
9. After considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for both sides, this court is of considered opinion that perusal of the Case
Diary would be necessary for consideration of the instant bail application.
10. Hence, call for the Case Diary.
11. Let this matter be listed on 13.07.2026.
12. The option of consideration of the prayer for interim bail is kept
open.
13. List accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
