Orissa High Court
Bishnupada Sethi And Ors vs Central Bureau Of Investigation .... ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 20-Jun-2025 17:52:07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 5905 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Bishnupada Sethi and Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Central Bureau of Investigation .... Opposite Party (s)
(CBI), New Delhi and Ors.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devashis Panda, Sr. Adv.
Along with associates
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Adv.
(For CBI)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-15.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction from this Court to
quash the ongoing investigation initiated by the CBI pursuant to FIR
No. RC 2172024A0017, and further pray for return of seized materials
and protection from coercive action, alleging procedural illegality,
harassment, and violation of fundamental rights.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) FIR No. RC 2172024A0017 was registered on 07.12.2024 by the CBI
under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections
7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It alleges that
Shri Chanchal Mukherjee (Group General Manager, Bridge & Roof Co.
Ltd., a CPSU) demanded ₹10,00,000 from Santosh Moharana (Director,
M/s Penta A Studio Pvt. Ltd.) as a bribe for clearing project bills and
facilitating further contract work.
(ii) The CBI laid a trap on 07.12.2024. It is claimed that the bribe amount
was received by Mukherjee and subsequently transferred to
Debadutta Mohapatra. The cash was recovered from Mohapatra's
vehicle near Hotel Mayfair, Bhubaneswar in the presence of
independent witnesses.
(iii) The CBI alleges that a call was made from the phone of the accused
Mukherjee to Debadutta Mohapatra at around 7:50 PM on the same
day, suspected to have been made by Petitioner No. 1 (a senior IAS
officer), instructing Mohapatra to receive the money.
(iv) Prior to the trap, Petitioner No. 1 had met with Mukherjee regarding a
₹50 crore project under the SC/ST Department. Investigation also
revealed that Mahima Sethi (Petitioner No. 3), daughter of Petitioner
No. 1, had previously received expensive items (a MacBook and a
luxury watch) from Debadutta Mohapatra.
(v) On 18.02.2025, CBI officers conducted searches at the official residence
of Petitioner No. 1 in Bhubaneswar and at Petitioner No. 3's hostel
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
room in IIM Lucknow under judicial warrants. Devices such as mobile
phones, laptops, and external drives were seized. It is alleged that two
lockers, not initially disclosed, were found to have been accessed
shortly before CBI could intervene and were discovered empty.
(vi) CBI claims that Petitioner No. 1 and his spouse were non-cooperative
during the search. The agency asserts that passcodes for digital devices
were refused, and some devices were submitted in damaged
condition. Video/audio recordings were made and submitted under
Section 105 of BNSS, 2023.
(vii) The petitioners allege that they were subjected to harassment,
unlawful seizure of personal items, denial of procedural safeguards
(like presence of lady officers), and overall conduct violative of their
privacy and dignity. They deny any involvement in the alleged crime
and assert that the work allocations were done through formal MoUs
with the CPSU, not individual discretion.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) Petitioners contend that there is no direct or indirect evidence, no call
record, voice sample, or witness testimony, linking Petitioner No. 1 to
the alleged instruction to collect the bribe.
(ii) It is argued that none of the sections of the PC Act apply to Petitioner
No. 1, as neither demand nor acceptance of any bribe by him is
established.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iii) Petitioners claim that their rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 have
been infringed through illegal search, character assassination in the
media, and denial of due process and privacy.
(iv) They allege that the investigation is a fishing expedition, driven by
unverified inputs and conducted in a vindictive, disproportionate
manner. Petitioner No. 3, a student with mental health issues, was
harassed during exams.
(v) Allegations include illegal seizure without documentation, non-
disclosure of materials seized, and fabrication of the gift narrative to
link Petitioner No. 3 with the accused.
(vi) Petitioner No. 1 asserts that allocation of work to the CPSU was done
via government policy and not individual decisions, making the
alleged motive of bribery baseless.
(vii) The investigation, despite absence of substantiating material, has
caused irreversible harm to Petitioner No. 1's professional reputation
and personal dignity.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The CBI argues that all search and seizure operations were conducted
under valid judicial warrants, and procedural mandates under BNSS
and PC Act were fully complied with.
(ii) The agency claims that Petitioner No. 1's alleged connection to a phone
call directing bribe collection, his prior meeting with the accused, and
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the gifts received by his daughter constitute sufficient grounds for
further investigation.
(iii) It is contended that petitioners obstructed lawful investigation by
refusing passcodes, submitting damaged phones, and misleading
investigators about lockers. These acts are treated as attempts to
tamper with or destroy evidence.
(iv) The petitioner first availed appellate remedy, then rushed to High
Court prematurely, thereby misusing the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction. He obtained an interim order without full disclosure or
exhausting remedy.
(v) The CBI maintains that right to privacy is not absolute and must yield
to legitimate criminal investigation. Seizure of digital devices is not
testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3).
(vi) It is argued that the case is at a crucial stage and premature judicial
interference, including release of seized items, would compromise the
integrity of the probe.
(vii) Although Petitioner No. 1 was not originally named in the FIR, his
involvement came to light during the investigation. The agency
defends its position that ongoing inquiry may unearth more linkages
requiring scrutiny.
(viii) The CBI prays that the writ petition be dismissed, terming it a
premature attempt to derail a legitimate and sensitive anti-corruption
investigation.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. The first issue that calls for attention is the extent to which a High
Court may intervene in an ongoing criminal investigation, particularly
in cases alleging corruption in public office. This is not a question that
invites novelty. The law on this point is firmly settled. Yet, in the face
of growing attempts to blur institutional boundaries, certain
constitutional fundamentals deserve restatement. Investigation is the
province of the executive, whether police or CBI. Adjudication belongs
to the judiciary. These spheres are not fluid zones of convenience but
carefully delineated domains grounded in the constitutional
architecture. The Court's role is not to supervise probes in real time. It
begins only once the process crystallises into a charge-sheet. Any
attempt to judicially intrude into the investigative stage risks not only
distorting this balance but also weakening the integrity of the criminal
justice system itself.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan
Kumar Guha1 reiterated the abovementioned stance and held that the
courts must have substantial grounds before they intervene in
investigations by issuing writs like certiorari. The relevant excerpts are
produced below:
"In my opinion, the legal position is well-settled. The legal
position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the
Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into
1982 AIR 949.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the case and will permit investigation into the offence
alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not
disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be
permitted. The observations of the Judicial Committee and
the observations of this Court in the various decisions which
I have earlier quoted, make this position abundantly clear.
The prepositions enunciated by the Judicial Committee and
this Court in the various decisions which I have earlier
noted, are based on sound principles of justice. Once an
offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must
necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no
offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as
any investigation, in the absence of any offence being
disclosed, will result in unnecessary harrassment to a party,
whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for
nothing. The liberty and property of any individual are
sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them
and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the
purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing
and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence
is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interest of justice
becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the
offence, and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence
of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is
disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the
consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the
deteriment of the cause of justice and the society at large.
Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to
be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the
Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case
where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go
unpunished to the serious deteriment of the welfare of the
society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis
of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere
with the investigation of a case where an offence has been
disclosed. The decision on which Mr. Chatterjee has relied
are based on this sound principle, and in all these cases, an
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
offence had been disclosed. Relying on the well- settled and
sound principle that the Court should not interfere with an
investigation into an offence at the stage of investigation
and should allow the investigation to be completed, this
Court had made the observations in the said decisions which
I have earlier quoted reiterating and reaffirming the sound
principles of justice."
8. This principle squarely applies here. The present petition, examined in
light of the above doctrine, appears to be a textbook case where
interference would be premature and inappropriate. The CBI's inquiry
is at nascent stage; evidence is still being gathered and assessed. No
charge-sheet or final report is before this Court. Interdicting the
investigation now would not only impede the fact-finding process but
also set a dangerous precedent enabling suspects to stall inquiries
against them by rushing to this Court.
9. The Supreme Court in Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar
Bajoria2, rebuked a High Court for imposing conditions on an
ongoing Economic Offences investigation, observing that such
supervision was "uncalled for" and would "impede the even course of
inquiry or investigation into serious allegations", and notably held as
follows:
"For what purpose the Division Bench made such
interference with the functions of the statutory authorities,
which they are bound to exercise under law, is not
discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the
function of the court to monitor investigation processes so
long as such investigation does not transgress any provision
of law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide
(1998) 1 SCC 52.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of
putting such questions to persons involved in such offences
A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would
make his interrogation a mere ritual."
10. These words apply with full force to the case at hand; there is no
showing that the CBI's investigation is transgressing any legal
provision; hence this Court must not micromanage or prematurely
halt it. Investigative agencies must be allowed the operational freedom
to pursue leads and uncover facts, especially in matters involving
serious economic offences and corruption. Judicial overreach at this
stage would undermine institutional accountability and set a
regressive precedent that compromises public interest.
11. Another feature that stands out is the petitioners' conscious choice to
ignore the remedies already available to them under the criminal law.
The criminal procedure is not without answers, it offers clear, time-
tested forums for any individual to challenge illegal searches, seek
return of property, or apply for anticipatory bail. These are not
ornamental safeguards. They exist for everyone, regardless of rank.
What is troubling is the unmistakable impression that the petitioner
believes his administrative standing entitles him to bypass the
ordinary route. Courts do not, and must not, create separate lanes for
those in high office who feel inconvenienced by being subject to the
same law as everyone else.
12. This selective invocation of constitutional remedies, while
disregarding the statutory mechanisms readily available under
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
criminal law, undermines the discipline and structure of legal process.
It suggests not a failure of the system, but reluctance to engage with it
on equal terms. However, it is important to clarify that the presence of
alternate remedies does not altogether oust the jurisdiction of
constitutional courts. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains
open, but its invocation must be justified within the narrow
framework recognized by law. The Supreme Court in the case of The
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. M/s Commercial
Steel Limited 3held as follows:
"The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar
to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in
exceptional circumstances where there is:
(i) a breach of fundamental rights;
(ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice;
(iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or
(iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated
legislation."
13. In the present case, no exceptional circumstances have been
demonstrated to justify this Court's interference under Article 226. The
petition discloses no prima facie breach of fundamental rights, nor any
denial of natural justice or jurisdictional excess. The search and seizure
operations were conducted under valid judicial warrants, and no
procedural illegality under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or the
Prevention of Corruption Act has been substantiated. Mere
dissatisfaction with the investigation's manner or allegations of
Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
reputational harm, however strongly felt, cannot override the
constitutional boundaries that govern criminal process.
14. Article 226 is not a vehicle for circumventing lawful scrutiny. It is a
constitutional remedy of last resort, not a substitute for statutory
mechanisms. When individuals occupying high public office invoke it
prematurely to stall an ongoing corruption probe, the integrity of legal
institutions stands compromised. The petitioners have neither shown
that the FIR fails to disclose an offence, nor pointed to any legal
infirmity such as absence of sanction or procedural nullity that would
render the investigation void ab initio. Their grievances, relating to
privacy, dignity, or alleged harassment, are matters that may be
examined at the appropriate stage on a developed evidentiary record.
At this juncture, entertaining such claims would amount to
unwarranted judicial intervention in an active investigation, contrary
to both precedent and constitutional design.
15. The Court is also deeply conscious of the nature of allegations here.
This is not a run-of-the-mill dispute; it involves allegations of
corruption at high levels of governance. Petitioner No.1, as a senior
IAS officer, holds a public office of trust. The allegations suggest that
he may have leveraged his official position to facilitate a bribe
regarding public projects, a charge which, if true, strikes at the heart of
institutional integrity. Corruption by public servants is a scourge that
undermines the rule of law and public confidence. There is an
overwhelming public interest in ensuring that such allegations are
thoroughly investigated and, if proven, that guilty are brought to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
justice. Petitioner No.1's status as a senior officer does not entitle him
to special treatment that places him above the law. On the contrary,
higher the office, greater the responsibility to submit to legal scrutiny
when credible accusations are made.
16. The petitioners have forcefully argued that their right to privacy has
been violated. There is no quarrel with the proposition that privacy is
now recognized as part of the fundamental right to life and liberty
(Article 21). However, it is equally true that no fundamental right,
including privacy, is absolute. The enforcement of criminal law is a
quintessential example of a compelling state interest that can justify
curbs on individual privacy, provided due process is followed.
17. In the present case, the intrusion into petitioners' privacy, search of
premises, seizure of personal digital data, inquiry into personal
finances, is grounded in law. Warrants were issued by a judicial officer
on the CBI's showing of probable cause, which is a constitutionally
sanctioned process. Section 165 Cr.P.C. permits search and seizure
upon reasonable suspicion of material evidence. When such
procedures are adhered to, the consequent restriction on privacy is
deemed a reasonable exercise of state power to investigate crime.
Importantly, the petitioners have not demonstrated that the CBI
transgressed the scope of the warrants or engaged in any surveillance
or data collection beyond what the warrants or law authorize.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
18. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v.
Union of India4 the Supreme Court held as follows:
"Apart from national security, the State may have
justifiable reasons for the collection and storage of data. In a
social welfare State, the Government embarks upon
programmes which provide benefits to impoverished and
marginalised sections of society. There is a vital State
interest in ensuring that scarce public resources are not
dissipated by the diversion of resources to persons who do
not qualify as recipients. Allocation of resources for human
development is coupled with a legitimate concern that the
utilisation of resources should not be siphoned away for
extraneous purposes. Data mining with the object of
ensuring that resources are properly deployed to legitimate
beneficiaries is a valid ground for the State to insist on the
collection of authentic data. But, the data which the State
has collected has to be utilised for legitimate purposes of the
State and ought not to be utilised unauthorisedly for
extraneous purposes. This will ensure that the legitimate
concerns of the State are duly safeguarded while, at the same
time, protecting privacy concerns. Prevention and
investigation of crime and protection of the revenue are
among the legitimate aims of the State. Digital platforms are
a vital tool of ensuring good governance in a social welfare
State. Information technology--legitimately deployed is a
powerful enabler in the spread of innovation and
knowledge."
19. In balancing interests, the scale at this stage tilts in favor of the public
interest in an unimpeded corruption investigation, as long as the
investigation is under the supervision of law - which it is. The Court
4 2019 (1) SCC 1
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
also notes that there are in-built safeguards: misuse of any personal
information or conducting roving inquiries unrelated to the case can
be checked by the trial court; evidence law will ensure only relevant
material is produced and considered.
20. It is worthwhile to mention that this Court's refusal to intervene at
this stage does not amount to adjudging the petitioners guilty, nor
does it foreclose their defense. The petitioners will have full
opportunity, if charges are formally brought, to contest the evidence,
cross-examine witnesses, and avail due process at trial. Presumption
of innocence remains with the petitioners until proven guilty, but
presumption of innocence is not a presumption against investigation.
Law enforcement is permitted to investigate on reasonable suspicion.
Stopping an investigation in its tracks would require a finding that
even if the facts alleged are true, no offence is made out, a condition
plainly not satisfied in a bribery scenario with documented recovery of
money. Thus, the demand to quash the FIR or stop the probe is wholly
unjustified.
21. Finally, the Court must speak to the larger truth behind the writ.
Corruption at high levels is not a matter of isolated misconduct. It
speaks to a breach of the social contract, where those entrusted with
public power allegedly turn it into private currency. In such cases, the
judiciary's responsibility is not limited to resolving procedural
questions. It extends to preserving the legitimacy of the investigative
process itself. Petitioner No. 1 is not just any litigant. He is a senior
bureaucrat, someone who has operated within the architecture of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
power for decades. When such an individual is named in a serious
corruption probe, the Court cannot pretend that ordinary safeguards
suddenly become excessive or optional. What is sought here is not
relief, but insulation, an attempt to short-circuit due process under the
pretext of constitutional grievance.
22. To entertain this writ at such a preliminary stage would be to set a
dangerous precedent that those with access, stature, or proximity to
government can invoke Article 226 as a fire escape from legitimate
inquiry. That is not the function of this jurisdiction. It is not the
judiciary's role to guard the reputations of the powerful from lawful
suspicion. Courts must, of course, remain vigilant against investigative
abuse. But vigilance cannot become veto. An investigation, once
triggered by credible material, must be allowed to breathe. The rule of
law loses its steam when it is invoked selectively; shielding those in
office from the very processes they once oversaw. Justice demands
neither haste nor hesitation, only that it be allowed to do its work,
uninterrupted and unafraid.
V. CONCLUSION:
23. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition.
The petition is dismissed as premature and not maintainable, the
investigation being at an ongoing stage. The CBI is at liberty to
continue its investigation in accordance with law, without any
interference from this Court. The reliefs sought by the petitioners to
interdict or quash the FIR/investigation are refused.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
24. Before parting, this Court deems it necessary to address the conduct of
Petitioner No.1. As a senior IAS officer, Petitioner No.1 is expected to
set a high example in upholding the law. The Court is constrained to
note its disapproval of the petitioner's attempt to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the midst of an investigation,
without exhausting the ordinary processes provided under law. Such
attempts smack of forum-shopping and an impatience with the
ordinary course of justice.
25. The extraordinary writ power under Article 226 cannot be permitted
to be used as a shield by individuals (howsoever high-placed) to fend
off legitimate inquiries. The petitioners are reprimanded for this ill-
advised litigation. They ought to have first pursued remedies like
cooperating with the investigation or approaching the appropriate
court if any specific illegality arose, rather than prematurely
approaching the High Court. This misuse of writ jurisdiction has
resulted in precious judicial time being diverted.
26. Nothing in this judgment shall be construed as an expression on the
merits of the allegations against the petitioners. The observations
herein are only for the purpose of deciding the maintainability of the
writ petition at the present stage. The petitioners' rights, including the
right to defend themselves and challenge the evidence if and when the
matter proceeds to trial, remain intact. Likewise, the investigation
agency is reminded to scrupulously follow the law and afford all due
process to the petitioners moving forward. Institutional integrity in
anti-corruption efforts must be matched by institutional fairness.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
27. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations.
28. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 20th June, 2025/
