The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Guwahati, on June 12, 2025, arrested Professor Nirmalendu Saha, a reputed academic and Dean of the School of Life Sciences at North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong, for allegedly accepting a bribe of ₹3.43 lakh. The arrest was made at Guwahati University guest house, where the professor was caught red-handed while receiving the illicit payment.
Alongside Professor Saha, Pranjal Sharma, proprietor of a private firm dealing in laboratory and scientific equipment, was also arrested. The CBI has indicated that the bribe was part of a broader quid-pro-quo arrangement related to supply orders and bill clearance for scientific and laboratory materials.
CBI Lays Trap After Receiving Source-Based Information
According to a press statement issued by the CBI, the case was registered on June 11, 2025, following source-based intelligence that pointed to corrupt dealings involving the professor and private individuals. The CBI alleged that Sharma, in collusion with the professor and other unidentified persons, had been manipulating procurement processes at the university to gain undue financial benefits.
FCRF x CERT-In Roll Out National Cyber Crisis Management Course to Prepare India’s Digital Defenders
The scheme reportedly involved Sharma facilitating the awarding of purchase orders and subsequent bill clearances in return for kickbacks to Professor Saha. Based on this intelligence, the CBI laid a well-planned trap operation and apprehended the suspects during the transaction.
Searches Yield Incriminating Evidence; Investigation Ongoing
The investigation agency conducted searches at two locations, which led to the recovery of incriminating documents supporting the allegations of corruption. As of the latest update, one more search operation is ongoing at an undisclosed location.
The CBI has stated that both accused individuals will be produced before the Competent Court in Guwahati. Officials have indicated that this is just the beginning of a deeper probe into academic procurement irregularities, with potential links to broader corruption networks in educational institutions.
The case once again highlights the vulnerability of academic institutions to procurement-related corruption and raises questions about the governance mechanisms in public universities, particularly in the Northeast.