Orissa High Court

Dhiman Chakma vs State Of Odisha (Vig) ... Opposite Party on 24 July, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              BLAPL No.6318 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
   BNSS).

   Dhiman Chakma                        ...          Petitioner
                           -versus-
   State of Odisha (Vig)                ... Opposite Party

   For Petitioners          : Mr. D. Panda. Advocate


   For Opposite Party       : Mr. S.K. Das, SC (Vig.)

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:24.07.2025 (ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the

petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Cuttack

Vigilance Cell PS Case No.06 of 2025 arising out of GR

(V) Case No.08 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned

Special Judge (Vig), Bhawanipatna, for commission of

offences punishable U/S.7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation of demanding and

accepting undue advantage in the form of bribe of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from the informant.

2. In the course of hearing Mr. Devashis Panda,

learned counsel for the petitioner submits with humility

that the offence as alleged against the petitioner is not

punishable beyond seven years and the investigating

agency has already investigated the offence

substantially and there is only mere formality of

submission of charge-sheet in this case. It is further,

argued by Mr. Panda that the petitioner is custody since

09.06.2025, but the allegation which are leveled against

the petitioner are subject to trial, however, the

petitioner has got a right to be presumed innocent until

proven guilty at the trial. It is also submitted by him that

the investigating agency has not sought for any

custodial interrogation of the petitioner and, therefore,

there is hardly any requirement of any further custody of

the petitioner. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Panda

prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

2.1. On the other hand Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das,

learned Addl. PP vigilance opposes the bail application of

the petitioner vehemently by contending inter alia that

there are sufficient materials to proceed against the

accused-petitioner for demanding and accepting the

bribe, but the petitioner being a high official has

potential to influence the witnesses and it would not be

desirable to grant of bail to the petitioner, otherwise a

wrong message would percolate to the sub-ordinate

staff, that anybody can be let up with the impunity after

committing crime. Mr. Das, however, acknowledging the

progress of investigation by way of recording statement

of the witnesses U/S.183 of BNSS and collecting the

voice sample of the petitioner very fairly informs the

Court that the investigating agency at the final stage of

investigation and it is in the process of obtaining

sanction to prosecute the petitioner, who is a public

servant. In concluding his argument, Mr. Das prays to

reject the bail application of the petitioner.

3. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against

the petitioner for accepting undue advantage in the form

of bribe, but the investigating agency is yet to submit

charge-sheet in this case, however, the accused is

presumed to be innocent until proven guilty at the trial,

which right gives rise to the well-recognized principle

"bail is the rule, but jail is the exception" and all the

allegations leveled against the petitioner are subject to

trial. It is also not in dispute that granting bail to an

accused should not be confused with letting him

acquitted of the charge inasmuch as granting bail would

only secure the liberty of the accused person for a

temporary period until such accused person is found

guilty of the offence, however, without trial a person

cannot be held guilty of the offence and the principle

under which bail is granted to an accused depends on

the probability of securing his attendance at the trial by

taking surety. In other words, if there is no

apprehension of petitioner avoiding the process of law,

he can be admitted to bail by taking surety.

4. In this case, there is substantial progress in

investigation, so also the State Vigilance Department

has not sought for any custodial interrogation of the

petitioner. However, the argument put forth by the State

Vigilance counsel to refuse bail to the petitioner for

recovery of unaccounted cash of around Rupees forty

seven lakhs and some foreign currencies from the house

of the petitioner, it appears that on being asked, the

learned counsel for the State Vigilance clearly

acknowledges to have not registered any case against

the petitioner till date for recovery of such cash and

foreign currencies and, therefore, such submission may

not be relevant at this stage. It is, however, up to the

State Vigilance Department/ any other authority to

proceed in that respect in accordance with law.

5. Be that as it may, the petitioner is a public

servant and one of the factor which is relevant for the

purpose of bail is the securing his attendance at the

trial and such factor can be looked at by taking into

consideration the status of the petitioner and his

roots in the society which also includes his service in

Government Department. No material has been

brought on record to evidence that the petitioner

poses flight risk and even, if such apprehension can

also be curbed by imposing appropriate condition to

direct the petitioner to surrender his pass-port, if any

or not to leave the territorial jurisdiction of the

country. True it is that bail cannot be refused, even if

there appears prima facie case against the petitioner

provided the accused-petitioner makes out a case for

grant of bail. Further, it is held by the Apex Court in

paragraph-51 of Satender Kumar Antil Vrs.

Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC

51 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. It is also not in dispute

that the statement of the complainant and

accompanying witnesses have already been recorded

U/S.183 of BNSS, so also the voice sample of the

petitioner has been collected and sent to forensic

laboratory and, therefore, there appears not only

substantial progress in investigation, but also appears

only formality of submission of charge-sheet in this

case and, therefore, this Court does not see any

justification for further detention of the petitioner in

custody for the purpose of investigation. Further, the

petitioner is in jail custody since 09.06.2025, but

there is hardly any immediate prospect of trial. No

material has been brought to the notice of the Court

to suggest that the petitioner would either influence

the witnesses or tamper with the investigation.

6. In view of the above facts and after having

considered the rival submissions and on going

through the materials placed on record and the

offence being not punishable beyond seven years and

taking into account the law laid down by the Apex

Court in Satender Kumar Antil(supra), this Court

without expressing any view on merit admits the

petitioner to bail.

7. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner

stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on

bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakhs) only with one solvent surety

each 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

stringent conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail and the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation by appearing before the IO as and when required,

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

(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the learned trial Court till disposal of the case,

(iv) the Petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the Investigating Agency as to his place of residence during the trial by providing his mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other

documents in support of proof of his residence. The Petitioner shall not change his address of residence without intimating to the Court and Investigating Agency,

(v) In case the Petitioner misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence, proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the Petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceeding against him for offence U/S.209 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law.

(vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect. If he has already surrendered his pass-port before the learned Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.

(vii) This Court reserves liberty to the Vigilance Department to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order passed by this Court, if for any reason, the petitioner violates 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

petitioner 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

petitioner in future for similar/grave offences on prima

facie accusations may be treated as a ground for

cancellation of bail in this case.

8. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

9. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per

Rules.