Priyanshu Boiragi vs The State Of Assam And Anr

Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010181182023

2025:GAU-AS:2655
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./858/2023
PRIYANSHU BOIRAGI
S/O SHRI JATINDRA NATH BOIRAGI
R/O HOUSE NO. 16, PRASANTI PATH, SURVEY, BELTOLA- BASISTHA ROAD,
GUWAHATI-781028, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:MRINAL SARMA
APS
INSPECTOR OF POLICE

SON OF LATE ANIL CH. SARMA
R/OHOUSE NO. 12
BISHNU NAGAR

BORBARI
GUWAHATI-3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR, MS N B KAYASTHA,MR. A N I HUSSAIN,MS. A
B KAYASTHA,MR. R DUBEY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS G SWAMI (R2),MR. M HUSSAIN (R2)

Page No.# 2/7
:: BEFORE ::
(HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA)

Advocate(s) for the Petitioner : Mr. Z. Kamar,
Sr. Advocate.
Mr. N.J. Das,
Advocate.

Advocate(s) for the Respondent: Mr. P. Kataki,
Special Public
Prosecutor,
Assam.

Mr. K. Baishya,
Addl. P.P.,
Assam.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 02.04.2026.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.06.2026.
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment? : YES.
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : YES.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard the Special Public Prosecutor, Assam Mr. P. Kataki, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent as well as Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor, Assam.

Page No.# 3/7
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing the
charge sheet filed by the police in connection with C.M.’s Vigilance Cell P.S. Case
No.09/2017 dated 07.11.2017 corresponding to Special Case No.09/2021.
3. On 07.11.2017, Shri Tapan Sarma, IAS (Retd.) was the Labour Commissioner-
cum-Member Secretary of Assam Building and other Construction Workers Welfare
Board, Guwahati had lodged an FIR before police alleging criminal breach of trust,
cheating, misappropriation of Government funds against his predecessor Shri Chohan
Doley, IAS and Nagendra Nath Choudhury, the then Administrative Officer of the Board
and against the present petitioner Priyangshu Bairagi.
4. In this case, I shall not discuss about Shri Chohan Doley, IAS and Nagendra
Nath Choudhury.

5. The Board issued a Notice Inviting Tenders for supply of very large number of
printed materials. M/s. Purbashree Printing House and 4 other printing houses filed
their tenders. The tenders of M/s. V.G. Enterprise was rejected on technical grounds.
It is alleged that M/s. Purbashree Printing House had also filed another tender in the
name of M/s. Genesis Printer and Publishers Limited.
6. It may be stated that the notice that was published on 23.10.2023, only the
specifications of the items were mentioned. No quantity of the items and the
scheduled rates of the items and the value of the work were not mentioned in the said
notice.
7. The tenders were open on 05.11.2013. No tender evaluation committed was
constituted by Shri Chohan Doley for evaluation of the tender documents. Shri
Nagendra Nath Choudhury prepared the comparative statement that was
countersigned by Shri Chohan Doley and Shri Gautam Baruah.
8. In the aforesaid manner, the work was given to M/s. Purbashree Printing House
owned by the petitioner Priangshu Bairagi.

Page No.# 4/7
9. In the meantime, Shri Chohan Doley had written to the Mission Director, Sarba
Siksha Abhiyan Assam, Kahilipara to distribute 61 lakh of leaflets, folders, and booklets
amongst school going children. M/s. Purbashree Printing House was directed to deliver
those articles to the Mission Director, Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Assam. The order was
complied with.
10. It is alleged that in the aforesaid manner, a huge amount of public money was
paid to M/s. Purbashree Printing House.
11. Ultimately, charge sheet was filed against some persons including Shri Chohan
Doley, IAS, Nagendra Nath Choudhury and Shri Priangshu Bairagi, the proprietor of
M/s. Purbashree Printing House.
12. While praying for quashing the charge sheet against him, the petitioner
Priangshu Bairagi has submitted that he acted on the basis of the N.I.T. and by
fulfilling all requirements, he got the work order. He claimed that he has nothing to do
with other accused.
13. Mr. Kamar has submitted that there is no iota of evidence in the charge sheet to
show that there was any prior meeting of minds or an agreement between the
petitioner with other co-accused prior to the issue of first work order or date of issue
of tender notices and as such the principal ingredients of the offence of criminal
conspiracy (Section 120A of the IPC) are totally missing in the present case.
14. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Kamar has relied upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of M.P.,
reported in (2022) 16 SCC 166. Paragraphs 27, 32 and 33 are quoted as under:
“ 27. The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-
BIPC is an agreement to commit an offence. Such an agreement must be proved
through direct or circumstantial evidence. The court has to necessarily ascertain
whether there was an agreement between the appellant and A-1 and A-2.
32. In view of the clear enunciation of law on the criminal conspiracy by this Court, we

Page No.# 5/7
find that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to satisfy the
Court that there was a prior meeting of minds between the appellant and A-1 and A-2.
There is no physical manifestation of such a concurrence extractable from surrounding
circumstances, declarations, or the conduct of the appellant. The evidence is shorn of
even a passive acknowledgment of conspiracy of the appellant with the accused, let
alone heralding a clear and conscientious participation of the appellant in the
conspiracy. As noted above, this Court has cautioned against replacing mere suspicion
with the legal requirement of proof of agreement.
33. For the reasons stated above we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to
establish the circumstances in which the appellant, being the custodian of only one set
of the keys for the dual lock system functional in the Bank, could alone be made
responsible for providing access to the strongroom and the safe in the Bank. We are
also of the clear opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of any
agreement between the appellant, A-1 and A-2, which is quintessential for a charge
under Section 120-BIPC. In the absence of such an agreement, even by inference
through circumstantial evidence, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge
of criminal conspiracy.”

15. The proposition of Mr. Kataki is that the petitioner was given the work for the
years 2013-2014 for an amount of ₹29,98,81,999/- whereas the market rate quoted
by the Government Printing Press for the same work was ₹6,09,65,700/-.
16. In the year 2014-2015, M/s. Purbashree Printing House was given the work
worth ₹49,82,32000/-. Whereas, the prosecution claims that the market rate of the
said work was valued at ₹40,45,67,800/-.
17. In the year 2015-2016, M/s. Purbashree Printing House was given the work
worth ₹41,24,78,886/-. According to the prosecution, the market rate for the said
work as quoted by the Government Printing Press should have been ₹6,01,21,023.20.
18. The case against the petitioner is that he managed to squeeze out public money
worth ₹64,89,36,381/- from the Government exchequer.

Page No.# 6/7
19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.
20. On an earlier occasion, I had agreed with the petitioner. The State of Assam
moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter was remanded to this Court for
fresh disposal.
21. Today, I have decided to have a different view other than the one which I had,
on the earlier occasion.
22. The amount of public money of ₹64,89,36,381/- is a very big amount and if it is
illegally squeezed out, then the petitioner deserves to be held liable for a criminal
offence. In this case, police has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner holding
him guilty of criminal offences. There are many points to be determined during the
trial. At this stage, I can see materials for a prima facie criminal case against the
present petitioner.
23. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has
been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR
1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:
“ 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 we 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 channelised 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 complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any

Page No.# 7/7
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”

24. At the time when N.I.T. was issued, the value of the work was not mentioned.
No tender evaluation committee was constituted when the tenders were opened on
05.11.2013. The comparative statements were prepared by Shri Nagendra Nath
Choudhury and countersigned by Shri Chohan Doley. The tender submitted by other
agencies were also, in fact, filed by M/s. Purbashree Printing House. The tenders
submitted by other agencies have supported M/s. Purbashree Printing House.
25. As mentioned hereinbefore, today, I find sufficient materials for a prima facie
criminal case against the present petitioner. In such a circumstance, the trial court is
the best forum where the allegations against the present petitioner could be
deliberated upon. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the
criminal petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed
accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant