Central Bureau Of vs Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6373 Ori

Orissa High Court

Central Bureau Of vs Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee ... Opposite ... on 30 June, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    CRLMA No.12 of 2025

   (An application U/S.483(3) r/w. Section 528 of the
   Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

   Central Bureau of             ...               Petitioner
   Investigation (CBI), New
   Delhi
                        -versus-
   Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee          ...   Opposite Parties
   & Others

   For Petitioner           :     Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate
                                            (Spl. PP CBI)

   For Opposite Party       :

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:30.06.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This application U/S.483(3) r/w. Section 528

of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

brought at the instance of the CBI with following

prayer, which has been stated in the application:-

"i. To consider the facts stated in the Petition, allow the same, issue notice to the Opposite Party; and

ii. Direct to cancel the bail granted by the Ld. Spl. Court to Opposite Party vide order dated 18.12.2024; and iii. Direct to arrest the opposite parties, and commit the opposite parties to the custody of the petitioner, with such terms and conditions deem just and proper."

2. Heard, Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for

CBI and perused the record. It is although claimed in

prayer No.ii to cancel the bail application of the

petitioner, but in fact after going through the

averments taken in the CRLMA, this Court does not find

as to how the impugned order is perverse or illegal. The

CBI has stated in paragraph-19 of the CRLMA that the

order dated 18.12.2024 of the learned Special Judge,

CBI-I, Bhubaneswar was passed without considering

the facts and circumstances of the present case in

entirety and also the principles laid down by the

Constitutional Courts as mentioned in the present

CRLMA. Further, the CBI has also taken pleas in the

CRLMA that relevant/crucial witnesses are yet to be

examined and many relevant/crucial documents are still

required to be collected and analysed and the accused

persons may influence the witnesses and tamper with

the evidence, if they are enlarged on bail at the stage

of the investigation. Further, in paragraph-14 of the

CRLMA, it is also stated that the substantial part of the

investigation is yet to be conducted, but during

searches at the premises of accused persons at

different locations at Bhubaneswar, Kolkata, Cuttack

etc., various incriminating documents have been

recovered, which are yet to be analyzed and, therefore,

the observation of the Spl. Court is not correct.

3. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid

averments, it appears that the learned CBI has sought

for cancellation of bail of the accused persons/OPs on

the ground that the investigation is yet to be conducted

and the crucial witnesses are yet to be examined, but it

does not deal with the impugned order with regard to

any illegality or perversity committed by the learned

trial Court. It is of course true that the learned CBI has

sought for imposing appropriate conditions, but the

learned trial Court has also imposed certain conditions

while granting bail to the accused persons-cum-OPs. It

is also not further in dispute that the impugned order

was passed way back on 18.12.2024, but in the

meantime, more than six months has elapsed and the

investigation must have progressed substantially. Mr.

Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI has of

course drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant

paragraphs of the impugned order, in which it is alleged

against accused-OP No.3-Debadutta Mohapatra that he

has not properly cooperated during the custodial

interrogation, which can be taken care of by imposing

suitable conditions, but Mr. Nayak submits that no

proper condition has been imposed against accused-

Debadutta Mohapatra to cooperate with the

investigation. In this regard, this Court is quite clear

that, if at all the CBI is not satisfied with the conditions

as imposed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-I,

Bhubaneswar, while granting bail to the accused

persons, it can still approach the concerned Special

Judge or Special Court for imposing appropriate

conditions, however, in what manner, the accused

persons are not cooperating with the investigation has

not been clarified, but if that is clarified or the

conditions already imposed are not adequate, the

Special Court can still pass order by imposing

appropriate conditions. Right now, however, on a

cumulative consideration of the submissions as

advanced by Mr. Nayak keeping in view the materials

placed on record together with analysis of the

impugned order, this Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the impugned order to cancel the bail

application of the OPs who have secured their liberty by

an order of competent Court.

4. Hence, the CRLMA filed by the learned CBI

being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 30th day of June, 2025/S.Sasmal

Location: High Court of Orissa