Orissa High Court

Chintan Raghuvanshi vs Republic Of India (Cbi) ... Opposite ... on 23 July, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
          BLAPL NOs.6437 & 6342 of 2025

   (In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
   BNSS, 2023).

  Chintan Raghuvanshi                ...        Petitioners
  (In BLAPL No.6437 of 2025)
  Bhakti Binod Behera
  (In BLAPL No.6342 of 2025)

                            Mr. A.K. Parija, Sr. Advocate &
                         Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate
                        along with Mr. L. Mishra, Advocate
                               (in BLAPL No.6437 of 2025)
                              Mr. C.R. Kanungo, Advocate
                              ( in BLAPL No.6342 of 2025)

                          -versus-
  Republic of India (CBI)            ... Opposite Parties
  (In BLAPL No.6437 of 2025)
  Union of India
  (In BLAPL No.6342 of 2025)
                             Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate (CBI)


       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING &JUDGMENT:23.07.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since these two bail applications arise out

of one and same case record, the same are taken up

together and disposed of by this common order with

the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. These are bail applications U/S.483 of the

BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection

with SPE, CBI, Bhubaneswar Case No.RC0152025A0005

pending in the file of learned Special Judge, CBI-1,

Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable

U/S.7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, on the

allegation of obtaining/accepting undue advantage in

the form of bribe of Rs.20 Lakhs as a part of demanded

amount, from the informant for not attaching or

arresting him and to settle ED Case No.ECIR/ BBZO/

20/ 2020, which was registered against the informant.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Ashok Kumar

Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr.

Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who

are being assisted by Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, learned

counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6437 of 2025

submits that the informant in this case is a history-

sheeter having 13 to 14 FIR lodged against him and in

order to get rid of the cases lodged by the ED, the

informant has illegally framed the petitioner in this case

with the assistance of the CBI by manufacturing a case

against him. It is also submitted for the petitioner that

the petitioner himself has appeared before the CBI

office at about 1.30 AM in the intervening night of

29/30.05.2025 in connection with the case and,

thereafter, he was arrested, but the CBI has never

sought for any custodial interrogation of the petitioner

and since the investigation has progressed

substantially, the possibility of influencing the witnesses

by the petitioner does not arise. In inviting to the

averments of para-6 of the objection of the CBI, Mr.

Parija, learned Senior Counsel submits that there is in

fact no case made out against the petitioner since the

aforesaid averment never reveals about the petitioner

demanding or accepting bribe nor any bribe was

recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who

having availed interim bail has surrendered to custody

after expiry of the interim bail and, thereby, he does

not pose any flight risk nor is there any material to

suggest that the petitioner would interfere in the

investigation. Accordingly, Mr. Parija, learned Senior

Counsel prays to grant bail to the petitioner on any

stringent condition.

3.1. In echoing the submission as advanced for

the petitioner in BLAPL No. 6437 of 2025, Mr. Chitta

Ranjan Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner in

BLAPL No.6342 of 2025 submits that the FIR does not

disclose anything about the petitioner to have

demanded or accepted the bribe and he having

detained in custody for 54 days may kindly be granted

the benefit of bail. Mr. Kanungo further submits that

the offence alleged against the petitioner being

punishable maximum up to seven years, the petitioner

should have been granted bail in view of the dictum

recorded by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil

Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) 10

SCC 51. It is also submitted by Mr. Kanungo that since

the offence is not punishable beyond seven years, the

Investigating Agency-cum-CBI should have allowed the

petitioner to go on by serving a notice U/S.35(3) of

BNSS. It is also submitted for the petitioner that during

the custody period of the petitioner, his wife was

served with a notice by the CBI, but due to her illness,

she could not appear before the CBI, however, no

custodial interrogation of the petitioner has been

sought for by the CBI and investigation having

progressed substantially, there would not be any

impediment to grant of bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, Mr. Kanungo prays to grant bail to the

petitioner.

3.2. In refuting the submissions as advanced for

the petitioners, Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel

appearing virtually for the CBI, however, strongly

opposes the bail application of the petitioners by inter-

alia contending that not only the petitioners are posing

flight risks, but also they are influential persons and

can influence the investigation by gaining over the

witnesses. Mr. Nayak also submits that there is

allegation against the petitioner-Chintan Raghuvanshi

for threatening the informant to extract the bribe

money and the petitioner having meticulously executed

his plan by demanding/accepting the bribe through co-

accused should not be taken lightly, since his role is

very much important in this case and the CBI official

has got prima facie materials against both the

petitioners. It is also argued by Mr. Nayak that since

the petitioner-Chintan Raghuvanshi himself has

threatened the informant by saying that he is having

properties worth Rs. 500 to 600 Crores at

Bhubaneswar, the ill-gotten money of the petitioner

needs to be investigated and the release of the

petitioner at this stage would definitely hamper such

prospect. While concluding his argument, Mr. Nayak

further submits that merely because the petitioner-

Chintan Raghuvanshi was not found to have influenced

the witnesses during interim bail, it does not give an

impression that he would not do it in future and he

being an influential person can influence the witnesses

and, therefore, his bail application should be turned

down.

4. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, it is not in dispute

that the investigation has progressed a lot, but the

petitioners are inside the jail custody and there is no

immediate prospect of trial. However, an accused

person in criminal law has an inherent right to be

presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial. Right

now the investigation is going on, but as to when the

trial would commence is not known and it would be

undesirable to keep a person in confinement on the

expectation that the trial would commence on one day,

unless there appears strong prima facie material

against such accused person and the offences are

punishable with imprisonment for life or death. Besides,

the petitioners are in custody for about 50 days or

more, but the punishment prescribed for the offence as

admitted by the learned CBI counsel is not beyond

seven years, rather the minimum punishment is three

years. In addition, admitting a person to bail should not

be confused with letting such person to have been

acquitted inasmuch as granting bail would only secure

the liberty of a person for a temporary period until the

accused person is found guilty of the offence. Moreover,

the paramount consideration in granting bail is securing

attendance of the accused at the trial by taking surety.

It is also not to be forgotten that bail is the rule, but jail

is the exception, which follows from the right of the

accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at

the trial.

5. In this case, the petitioner-Chintan

Raghuvanshi is a Government official and, thereby,

there would not be any difficulty to secure his

attendance at the trial, but even if considering the

argument of the CBI counsel to consider the petitioner

to be a flight risk, such apprehension can be curbed by

imposing appropriate conditions like directing the

petitioners to deposit their passports or not leave the

territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior

permission till disposal of the case. On a conspectus of

materials placed on record, it is found that both the

petitioners were arrested from different places on

different times and the tainted money was recovered

from a vehicle allegedly belonging to the petitioner-

Bhakti Binod Behera. The allegation against the

petitioner-Chintan Raghuvanshi in this case is for

receiving or obtaining illegal gratification through co-

accused and the vital item of evidence against him is

his alleged conversations with the informant and co-

accused through phone. Of course, the CBI counsel also

alleges about the availability of direct allegation against

the petitioner-Chintan Raghuvanshi, however, this

Court feels it necessary to refer to the averments made

by the CBI in its objection to unearth allegation against

the petitioners. The relevant averment has been

discussed in paragraph-6 of the affidavit objection

dated 01.07.2025 of the CBI, which reads as under:-

"6. That, the conversation recorded during verification inter alia establish clear demand of bribe by Sh. Bhakti Binod Behera. In the recorded conversation it is seen that accused Sh. Bhakti Binod Behera is giving all kinds of assurance on behalf of accused Sh. Chintan Raghuvanshi for extending the favours / benefits in the ED Case pending against the complainant in lieu of the demanded bribe amount. Evidences collected during investigation has established beyond doubt that Sh. Bhakti Binod Behera accepted the bribe money on behalf of Sh. Chintan Raghuvanshi. Further, the recovery of said tainted bribe money was made from the Thar Vehicle of Sh. Bhakti Binod Behera in the presence of independent witnesses. As such, all the elements of trap case i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery are established on the part of accused Sh. Bhakti Binod Behera. There is no rebuttal on the part of Shri Bhakti

Binod Behera for the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe in lieu of giving relief to the complainant in his ED case."

6. It is also clarified by the CBI in the affidavit

that in the course of the investigation, both the

petitioners had provided the password of their mobile

phones, which itself suggests that the petitioners are

cooperating. Further, the petitioner-Chintan

Raghuvanshi has also not misused the liberty granted

to him in the form of interim bail, which strengthens his

contention for bail. True it is that bail cannot be

refused, even if there appears prima facie case against

the petitioner provided the accused makes out a case

for grant of bail. It is also an admitted fact that CBI has

never sought for any custodial interrogation of the

petitioners. Further, it is held by Apex Court in

paragraph-51 in Satendra Kumar Antil(supra) that if

the Court is satisfied, after taking into account, on the

basis of information placed before it, that the accused

has his roots in the community and is not likely to

abscond, it can safely release the accused on his

personal bond. It is also well settled principle that while

granting or refusing of bail to a person accused of an

offence, one of the factors that is to be looked into is

the nature of the accusations and the severity of

punishment in case of conviction and it is not the rule

that bail should be denied in a case of economic

offences.

7. In view of the discussions made

hereinabove and taking into consideration the rival

submissions and on going through the materials placed

on record and the punishment that would entail in

conviction for the offences as alleged against the

petitioners and the law laid down by the Apex Court in

Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), this Court without

expressing any view on merits considers it proper to

admit both the petitioners to bail.

8. Hence, these two bail applications of the

petitioners namely Chintan Raghuvanshi in BLAPL

No.6437 of 2025 and Bhakti Binod Behera in BLAPL

No.6342 of 2025 are allowed and each of the

petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail

bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two

solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction

of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms

and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with

following conditions:-

(i) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail,

(ii) the petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless their attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioners fail without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law,

(iii) the petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of the learned trial Court till disposal of the case by intimating their present address of stay to the concerned Court,

(iv) the petitioners shall inform the Court as well as the IO as to their places of residence during the trial by providing their mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of their residence,

(v) in case the petitioners misuse the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence, proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS is issued and the petitioners fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the

learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceeding against them for offence U/S.209 of the BNS in accordance with law,

(vi) the petitioners shall appear before the IO as and when required and shall cooperate with the further investigation in the present case,

(vii) the petitioners shall surrender their Passports, if any, in the Court in seisin of the case till conclusion of trial, unless they are permitted to take back such Passports to use for specific purpose during the pendency of case.

(viii) This Court reserves liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order passed by this Court, if for any reason, the petitioners violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the

case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the

petitioners without further reference to this Court, if

any of the above conditions are violated or a case for

cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake

of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the

petitioners in future for similar/grave offences on prima

facie accusations may be treated as a ground for

cancellation of bail in this case.

9. Accordingly, these BLAPL Nos.6437 and

6342 of 2025 stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified

copy of the order as per Rules.