Rabindra Kumar Jena vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2025 Latest Caselaw 1490 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rabindra Kumar Jena vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 21 July, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  CRLMC No.2620 of 2025
                 Rabindra Kumar Jena         .....                           Petitioner
                                                               Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Adv.

                                              -versus-
                 Central Bureau of Investigation,      .....          Opposite Parties
                 Bhubaneswar and another
                                                                Mr. S. Nayak, Special
                                                                Counsel for CBI


                                  CRLMC No.2177 of 2025
                 Rabindra Kumar Jena         .....                           Petitioner
                                                               Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Adv.

                                              -versus-
                 Central Bureau of Investigation,      .....          Opposite Parties
                 Bhubaneswar and another
                                                                Mr. S. Nayak, Special
                                                                Counsel for CBI


                                      CORAM:
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                    MOHAPATRA

                                              ORDER

21.07.2025 Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI.

3. Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI is directed to file

a reply affidavit to the application filed by the Petitioner within two weeks after serving a copy thereof on learned counsel for the Petitioner.

4. Heard Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI.

5. The subject matter of the dispute in the present application arises out of the self-same dispute which is also the subject matter of dispute in another CRLMC application bearing CRLMC No.2177 of 2025 and is pending before this Court for final hearing. As such, the present matter be heard analogously with the connected matter.

6. Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI who is already appearing for the Opposite Parties in CRLMC No.2177 of 2025 accepts notice in the present case. Since the copy of the CRLMC application has already been served on Mr. Nayak, no extra copy of the application is require to be served.

7. This I.A. has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner with a prayer to stay the operation in respect of impugned notices dated 03.07.2025, 07.07.2025 and 14.07.2025 issued by the Opposite Parties under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., 1973 till disposal of the present application.

8. On the prayer of Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for Opposite Party, he is granted two weeks' time to file his objection to the I.A.

9. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Special Counsel for CBI, further keeping in view the nature of the dispute involved in the present application as well as keeping in view the orders passed in the connected CRLMC No.2177 of 2025, this Court at the outset would like to observe that the fairness of the trial which is the essence of any criminal trial is non-negotiable. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present application is that the investigating agency has issued several notices to the Petitioner under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. thereunder asking the Petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and produce certain information and documents in course of the investigation.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand contended that although the case is of the year 2014 and in the meantime charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance of the offences has been taken by the learned trial Court, the Petitioner is being harassed by the investigating agency in the name of further investigation. He further submitted that notices purported to be one under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. are being issued to the Petitioner in the name of further investigation. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner alleged harassment at the hands of the investigating agency. Further, referring to some of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that after filing of the charge-sheet and after cognizance has been taken the investigation of the case has come to an end, so far the present Petitioner is concerned. However, with an oblique motive the investigating agency is repeatedly harassing the Petitioner by compelling the Petitioner to appear before the investigating agency

at frequent intervals on various dates which is causing serious inconvenience to the Petitioner.

11. Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI on the other hand contended that initially the present criminal case was started pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the present case is a part of the chit fund scam that had taken place in the State of Odisha involving misappropriation of huge public money. Moreover, in view of the successive orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex court, the investigation in the present case is still open. As such, the investigating agency requires cooperation of the Petitioner to arrive at a just and fair conclusion during investigation. He further submitted that although this Court had granted protection to the Petitioner in the connected CRLMC application bearing CRLMC No.2177 of 2025, however, the Petitioner is not cooperating with the investigating agency. On such ground, Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI objected to passing of any interim direction at this stage of the proceeding.

I.A. No.1543 of 2025 arising out of CRLMC No.2177 of 2025

12. The aforesaid I.A. has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner in the present CRLMC application, who is also the Petitioner in CRLMC No.2620 of 2025.

13. On 09.07.2025, while taking up CRLMC No.2177 of 2025, this Court passed an interim order in I.A. No.1543 of 2025. In course of hearing of the I.A., learned counsel for the Petitioner produced a copy of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. dated 03.07.2025 and expressed his apprehension that the Petitioner might

be arrested by the CBI.

14. Considering such apprehension and as an interim measure, this Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner till the next date in connection with the present case, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when his presence is required by the I.O. for the purpose of investigation.

15. CRLMC No.2177 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-I, Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.5 of 2018 and for a further direction to the learned trial Court to secure the due and lawful compliance of the mandamus issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as orders dated 23.07.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRLMP No.1299 of 2023.

16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument, submitted that the grievance of the Petitioner in the present application is that the CBI has failed to make a full and complete disclosure of the documents, statements, material objects and exhibits not relied upon by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, but collected/seized in course of investigation. He further contended that admittedly documents which were seized by the CBI from the chartered accountant of the Petitioner can be verified from the records of the CBI itself, which are specifically exculpatory, ex facie and good enough to demolish the entire case of the CBI, were deliberately concealed by the CBI from the learned trial Court. The aforesaid allegation made by learned counsel for the Petitioner is

outrightly denied by the learned Special Counsel for CBI.

17. Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for CBI contended that a list of documents which have been collected/seized in course of investigation and are not relied upon by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, have already been handed over to the Petitioner. Such contention of the learned Special Counsel for CBI is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

18. On preliminary hearing of the learned counsels appearing from both sides, it appears that the dispute involved in the present application is with regard to supply of documents collected/seized by the CBI during investigation, which are not relied upon by the prosecution while filing in the charge-sheet, that have not been disclosed to the Petitioner although the same accordingly to the Petitioner is exculpatory in notice. As a result of which, learned counsel for the Petitioner apprehends that the same might cause prejudice to the Petitioner in the subsequent stage of the trial. Moreover, it was also contended that such documents might be relied upon by the accused-Petitioner at the time of framing of charge to establish that no offence is made out against the present Petitioner.

19. In the aforesaid context, this Court further observed that one CRLMP No.1299 of 2023 was filed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court by the accused-Petitioner. The learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 27.07.2023 was called upon to test the correctness of order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI- I, Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.5 of 2018 rejecting the application of the Petitioner. The learned Coordinate Bench in its order dated

27.07.2023 has referred to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo-moto writ (CRL No.1 of 2017) in Para-5 of order dated 27.07.2023 and it has also been observed that learned counsel for CBI fairly conceded to the proposition that the accused is entitled to the list of documents and other materials which are not relied upon by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, but the same have been seized/collected in course of investigation. Accordingly, the CRLMP was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench directing the prosecution to furnish a list of those documents, statements, material objects and exhibits not relied upon by the prosecution in the charge-sheets, but have been collected/seized in course of investigation in terms of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

20. After disposal of the above noted CRLMP application, a list of documents has been provided to the Petitioner by the prosecution. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner is not satisfied with that list and he further contended that there are certain other documents/materials which were seized/collected in course of investigation and such documents/materials have not been reflected in the list provided to the Petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court observed that the dispute in the present CRLMC application boils down to the point that although certain documents/statements/material objects were collected/seized in course of investigation and were not relied upon by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, a list thereof has not been provided to the Petitioner. Although the same is denied by the learned Special Counsel for CBI by saying that a list of all those documents has been provided.

21. Keeping in view the aforesaid dispute and to ensure a fair trial, this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the I.O. within ten days from today along with a copy of today's order. The Petitioner shall furnish a list of documents which although were collected/seized during investigation but were not relied upon by the prosecution, supported by seizure list/ panchnama/ acknowledgement/ receipt of the CBI. In such eventuality, the I.O. shall verify the same and in the event it is found that in fact those documents were seized/collected during investigation but not relied on by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, the same shall be included in the list of the documents and such list be provided to the Petitioner by the investigating agency. So far, the notices under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. are concerned, the Petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the investigating agency by appearing before the I.O. and giving explanation to the notices issued under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.

22. List both the CRLMC applications on 26th August, 2025.

23. The interim protection granted vide order dated 25.06.2025 as well as interim order dated 09.07.2025, passed in CRLMC No.2177 of 2025, shall continue to remain in operation till the next date.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge

S.K. Rout

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Page 8 of 8.