The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1252 of 2025 Debadutta Mohapatra Petitioner Represented By Mr.Y. Das, Sr. Adv., along with, Mr.S. K. Acharya, Adv. -versus- Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Opposite Party Represented By Adv. Mr.Sarthank Nayak, Special Public Prosecutor-cum- Retainer Counsel for the CBI CRLMC No.347 of 2025 Aditya Dev Bhubaneswar Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Petitioner Represented By Mr.Y.Das, Sr.Adv., Mr.P. K. Rath, Sr. Adv., along with, Mr.S. K. Acharya, Adv Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) -versus- Opposite Party Represented By Adv. Mr.Sarthank Naik, Special Counsel for the CBI CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA Date of hearing : 22.07.2025 | Date of Judgment : 22.10.2025 A.K. Mohapatra, J. : Page 1 of 24 1. The abovenoted CRLMC No.1252 of 2025 has been filed with a prayer to quash the FIR No. RC2172024A0017, dated 07.12.2024, lodged on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption-II, New Delhi, pending before the Court of the Learned Special Judge, CBI-I, Bhubaneswar as R.C. No.17(A) of 2024, for commission of offences under sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) read with section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. Likewise, CRLMC No.347 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-Company with a prayer to quash the summons dated 17.12.2024 & 24.12.2024 under Annexure-1 Series issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption-II, in R.C. No. 17(A) of 2024, which arises out of the FIR No. RC2172024A0017, dated 07.12.2024, which has been registered for commission of offence under sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) read with section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. The factual matrix in both CRLMC No.1252 of 2025 and CRLMC No.347 of 2025 is identical and arises from the same FIR. The Petitioner in CRLMC No.1252 of 2025 is the Managing Director of the Company which figures as the Petitioner in CRLMC No. 347 of 2025. Accordingly, both matters were heard analogously for the sake of convenience, with CRLMC Page 2 of 24 No.1252 of 2025 being treated as the lead matter for purposes of analysis of
Facts
the factual backgrounds of both the above noted applications. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. The crux of the factual background of the present case, as culled out from the copy of the FIR and the Observation-cum-Recovery Memorandum (“the Memo”), under Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 respectively (of CRLMC No.1252 of 2025), in brief, is as follows; Initially, M/s Bridge and Roof Co. India Pvt. Ltd. (“BRCIL”) had been awarded certain tenders from the National Aluminum Company Limited (“NALCO”) pertaining to some civil construction work, which was then entrusted to M/s. Penta A Studio Pvt. Ltd. (“PENTA”). Certain information from a source was received by the CBI that
Legal Reasoning
prima facie evidence linking the Petitioner to the commission of any offence. n. Lastly, the Petitioner has cited the following cases in support of his stance; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466; Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678; the order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court dated Page 11 of 24 07.03.2025 in Kulandaisamy & Anr. v. State, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2025; and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749; and Lovely Salhotra v. State, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 391. CONTENTIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY-CBI 7. Heard Mr.Sarthak Naik, learned special public prosecutor-cum- retainer counsel for the Opposite Party-CBI. Perused the submissions and the Counter Affidavits filed. The counsel for the Opposite Party-CBI emphatically argues that there are sufficient grounds to justify the investigation into the role of the Petitioner in the present crime and that the investigation is being conducted fully in accordance with law. It has been contended that the grounds taken in the CRLMC application by the Petitioner are devoid of merit. As such, it should be dismissed at this stage. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party-CBI advanced detailed submissions in support of his contentions, which may be summarised as follows; a. Initially, pursuant to information received from a reliable source and subsequent registration of an FIR, a trap was laid by the CBI team on 07.12.2024. During the said operation, it was discovered that the bribe amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was first handed over by Mr.Moharana to Mr.Mukherjee and, subsequently by Mr.Mukherjee to the present Petitioner. Ultimately, the bribe money was recovered Page 12 of 24 from the Petitioner‟s vehicle (a Mercedes car) in the presence of independent witnesses. b. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was arrested strictly in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure. Therefore, there is a strong prime facie evidence to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the demand and acceptance of the bribe money and, it can very well be said that the Petitioner was engaged in a conspiracy with the co-accused public servant. c. It was further submitted that the Mercedes car belonging to the Petitioner was seized vide the “Observation-cum-Recovery Memorandum.” The Petitioner was arrested on the spot, and the place of arrest has been mentioned in the Arrest Memo as the office of M/s. BRCIL, which was treated as an “extended spot” for the purpose of completing the necessary formalities. Therefore, there is no illegality either in the arrest of the Petitioner or in the seizure of his vehicle. It has further been stated that the Petitioner‟s involvement in the illegal exchange is clear since the petitioner had gone to the café, from whence he was asked to come out and then arrested, just after receiving the bribe of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was recovered from the vehicle of the Petitioner. Page 13 of 24 d. As regards the Petitioner‟s contention that he is a private individual and therefore cannot be brought within the ambit of the offences alleged, the learned counsel submitted that such a plea is wholly misconceived. The PC Act contemplates the liability of private individuals who, though not public servants themselves, act in concert with or abet public servants in corrupt practices. Thus, there may arise situations where a private individual who knowingly participates in the receipt, transmission, or facilitation of bribe money can be held culpable under the PC Act. e. Next, regarding the Petitioner‟s contention that he has not been named in the FIR, it was submitted that the role of the Petitioner emerged during the subsequent course of investigation and that the omission of his name in the FIR does not in any manner invalidate the proceedings. It is a fairly well-settled principle of law that an FIR is merely a first information report which sets the criminal law in motion and need not contain exhaustive details of all the accused or all particulars of the offence. The FIR need not be treated as an almanac or encyclopaedia of the offence. The learned counsel further emphasized that the powers of search and seizure vested in the investigating agency are intended to safeguard societal interest and maintain public order, and reasonable restrictions upon the accused Page 14 of 24 may lawfully be imposed during the pendency of investigation to ensure its integrity and efficacy. f. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party-CBI that the Petitioner has not been cooperating with the investigation. Instead, on one pretext or another, the Petitioner has filed multiple frivolous petitions with the sole objective of delaying and frustrating the investigative process. The present petition, it was contended, is nothing but a stratagem intended to stifle the investigation and there exists on record cogent and overwhelming evidence against the Petitioner, justifying the continuation of investigation. Moreover, the summons issued to the Petitioner‟s company are for the purpose of unearthing any possible larger conspiracy which might be existing and no right of the Petitioner‟s company has been violated in lieu of such notices. g. It was further stated that the Petitioner was summoned to provide the password to his mobile phone to facilitate forensic imaging and extraction of relevant data. However, despite issuance of multiple notices, the Petitioner failed to comply. It was submitted that such conduct of the Petitioner points towards his deliberate non- cooperation with the investigation. Page 15 of 24 h. The learned counsel for the CBI has further argued that the demand for disclosure of a password does not in any way violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The said constitutional protection extends only to testimonial compulsion, whereas a password, which is akin to a fingerprint/ specimen signature/ voice sample/ DNA profile, is merely a means of identification and does not in itself amount to self- incriminatory. What may be incriminating is the content of the data accessed and not the means of access the potential evidence. Hence, no violation of the Petitioner‟s rights arises at this stage. i. Additionally, it was submitted that at this nascent stage of the on-going investigation, detailed particulars of the investigation cannot be disclosed to the Petitioner, as there exists a strong apprehension that he may attempt to interfere with or hamper the ongoing investigation. j. Lastly, the learned counsel for the CBI once again reiterated that the Petitioner‟s arrest was executed in accordance with law, and that the investigation is being carried out by following the due legal process and in strict adherence to statutory procedure. Moreover, there is clear indication of the involvement of the Petitioner in the transaction of the bribe money. As such, the grounds urged by the Page 16 of 24 Petitioner in the instant CRLMC petition, as well as those advanced during arguments, are devoid of merit and the petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. k. To support the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judicial precedents; M/s Jayant Vitamins Ltd. vs. Chaitanyakumar and Anr., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 15; State of Chhattisgarh vs. Aman Kumar Singh, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 559; Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 795; Union of India vs. B.R.Bajaj & Others, reported in 1994 Crl.L.J. 2086. ANALYSIS 8. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. Perused CRLMC application, the documents on record, the Counter Affidavits and the Rejoinder filed by the parties. At the very outset, it is undisputed that the CBI had initially received information from a source regarding a possible bribery transaction being planned between a public servant and some private individuals. Following the tip-off, the investigating agency laid out a trap. In the course of their operation it was discovered that one Mr.Mukherjee has allegedly received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as bribe from one Mr.Moharana and the present Petitioner is also involved in the dealings. However, the Page 17 of 24 Petitioner maintains that he is in no way involved in the aforesaid illegal transaction which attracts provisions of the PC Act. 9. As has been recapitulated in scores of pronouncements by this Court and the Apex Court, the law regarding exercise of the inherent powers of this Court to quash an FIR, or an investigation emanating therefrom, is now well settled. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has very succinctly laid down the following non-exhaustive instances where a High Court may quash the impugned FIR; “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code, except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation Page 18 of 24 is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable based on which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.” 10. Similarly, in Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, has to take the allegations in the FIR at the face value. Furthermore, it is also a well-settled principle that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (i.e. erstwhile section 482 Cr.P.C), is not intended to conduct a mini-trial. Instead, the inquiry is to be restricted to whether the allegations made in the complaint or FIR, if accepted as true on their face, constitute a prima facie offence (reference, in this regard, may be had to the Page 19 of 24 Apex Court‟s dictum in CBI vs Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 37, Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar & Ors., bearing 2025 INSC 807, and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191). Therefore, it is clear that while adjudicating the veracity of the Petitioner‟s prayer to quash the investigation, this Court is required to see whether, on the face of the record, any prima facie case is made out against him. 11. Next, as is clear from the record, the present case is at the stage of investigation, that too at an incipient stage. If the date of filing of the CRLMC applications is considered, it can be seen that they have been filed 87 days (i.e. 04.03.2025 in the case of CRLMC No.1252 of 2025) and 41 days (i.e. 17.01.2025 in CRLMC No.347 of 2025) after the registration of the FIR (i.e. on 07.12.2025). It is needless to reiterate that the stage of investigation is squarely the realm of the executive, i.e. the investigating authority and the Courts should generally not interfere with the investigation until its completion. Nevertheless, it is not as if there can be no such instances where the High Court cannot quash an FIR when the investigation therein is at an initial stage. 12. It would be apposite to mention here that there have been several instances where the Hon‟ble Apex Court have upheld the quashing of such FIRs, more recently in Imran Pratapgadhi v State of Gujrat & Ors., reported Page 20 of 24 in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 wherein, in para 42, while summarizing its conclusions, the Apex Court has observed that there is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash the FIR. However, the aforesaid observation (in point vii of para 42) has been prefaced by another observation to the effect that the High Court, in the given case, must first see if any offence was made out on the face of it, and only then, to prevent abuse of the process of law, can the High Court interfere/ proceed with the quashing of the FIR even though the investigation is at the nascent stage. That is to say, it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the offence and there is no such blanket rule in this regard. 13. Per contra, it has also been reiterated time and again that when the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigating agency has the exclusive authority to inquire into the allegations and collect evidence. Judicial intervention at this stage is generally not merited, as the process from registration of the FIR up to the filing of the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C (presently section 193(2) of the BNSS, 2023) falls squarely within the domain of the investigating agency. Interference may be justified only in rare and exceptional cases where the allegations, on the face of the record, do not disclose any offence or where continuation of the investigation would clearly amount to an abuse of the process of law Page 21 of 24 (reference may be had to the pronouncements of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, reported in 1982 AIR 949; S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 659; State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 728 (para 11); Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Another, 2003 (6) SCC 195 and other similar decisions). 14. Additionally, the Petitioner has put forth an argument that being a private individual he cannot be subjected to the provisions of the PC Act. To such a contention, this Court observes that there is no such provision or rule which unequivocally excludes a private individual from falling within the scope of the PC Act and, a non-public servant can very well be convicted for abetting offences under the provisions of the PC Act (see P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1091). 15. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, on a careful scrutiny of the FIR and the Memo, it is clear on the face of the record that a sum of rupees ten lakhs, which is alleged to be the exact amount of money involved in the illegal transaction under scrutiny in the present case, was recovered from the Petitioner‟s vehicle. Moreover, the Petitioner had also joined the two other co-accused persons in their car (Hyundai Creta) in front of the café where the Petitioner was initially spotted prior to his arrest. Therefore, it is clear on the face of the record that prima facie the Petitioner‟s involvement in the present Page 22 of 24 case cannot be ruled out. Additionally, even though the Petitioner has attempted to demonstrate certain procedural irregularities in the investigative process, there is no showing on the face of the record that the CBI‟s investigation is clearly transgressing any legal provision. Since the investigation is at an early stage and evidence is still being garnered, with no charge-sheet or final report before this Court, any interdiction at this point would only serve as obstructing the due course of investigation and amount to unnecessary judicial overreach. 16. Moreover, while holding that the stage to examine the case for quashing by applying the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, this Court observes that the stage is premature to draw a conclusion with regard to alleged involvement of the Petitioner in the reported crime especially when the investigation of the case is still continuing and on the face of availability of prima facie material against the Petitioner in the shape of seizure of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from a vehicle which undisputedly stands recorded in the name of the Petitioner. Moreover, the questions raised by the Petitioners are yet to be verified during investigation. It is needless to mention here that if the Petitioners are innocent and there exists no incriminating material against them or no material to establish their involvement in the alleged crime, the law provides that the I.O may file a final form exonerating the Petitioners of all allegations. Additionally, in the event any charge-sheet is Page 23 of 24 filed against the Petitioners, the same can very well be challenged at a subsequent stage. Ultimately, on a careful overall analysis of the factual background of the present case, this Court finds no justification to stifle a legitimate investigation without waiting for the final outcome thereof. 17. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, this court, at this stage, is not inclined to interfere or prematurely halt the on-going investigation. However, while disposing of the present applications, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to approach this Court after conclusion of the investigation and consequential filing of the charge sheet, if the Petitioners are so advised. (A. K. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 22nd October, 2025/Rubi Behera, Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 18-Dec-2025 16:27:20 Page 24 of 24
Arguments
one Mr.Chanchal Mukherjee, the Group General Manager of BRCIL, might be indulging in corrupt and illegal activities in the matter of “awarding work orders and clearing bills” in lieu of obtaining undue advantage. 4. The FIR further reveals that on 06.12.2024, Mr.Mukherjee had asked one Mr.Santosh Moharana, Director of PENTA, and his father Mr.Mana Mohan Moharana to meet him at his office concerning some urgent matter. It was during this meeting held on 06.12.2024 at his Bhubaneswar office, that Mr.Mukherjee demanded a bribe of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) form Mr.Moharana. The bribe was to be delivered on 07.12.2024 and would apparently be adjusted towards the future billings of Mr.Moharana. Page 3 of 24 5. Upon receiving such information, the CBI team members along with some independent witnesses arrived near the office of Mr.Mukherjee on the aforesaid date and, upon reaching the forest park road, Bhubaneswar, followed a car (Hyundai Creta) which was occupied by both Mr.Mukherjee and Mr.Moharana. The car then reached a café (Mamma Mia) near Mayfair Hotel in Bhubaneswar and the above named two persons were joined by the present Petitioner. After a few minutes, it was observed that the Petitioner exited the car (Hyundai Creta) with a carry bag, which he then deposited on the right side rear seat of his Mercedes car that was kept nearby. Afterwards, the Petitioner entered the café. Finally, the CBI team, in presence of independent witnesses, confronted the aforesaid persons, whereupon it was discovered that the carry bag kept in the Mercedes car contained the purported bribe amount of Rs.10,00,000/- comprising 200 packets each containing 100 notes of Rs.500 denomination. It is in the aforesaid background that the present FIR has been registered for commission of the aforementioned offences against Mr.Chanchal Mukherjee, Mr.Santosh Moharana, Mr.Mana Mohan Moharana, PENTA, and, unknown public servants and private persons. Presently, the investigation is going on and the Petitioner has been implicated in the present case as an accused. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court, by invoking its inherent powers under section 528 of BNSS, with a Page 4 of 24 prayer to quash the FIR, in CRLMC No.1252 of 2025, and to quash the summons issued to the Petitioner-Company in CRLMC No.347 of 2025. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER 6. Heard Mr. Yasobant Das and Mr. P. K. Rath, learned Senior Advocates, assisted by Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, learned counsel, for the Petitioner. Considered the submissions and the documents/affidavits filed on behalf of the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner‟s categorical stand that no case whatsoever is made out against him on the face of the record and by accepting the FIR allegations to be true, that he has no connection with the alleged transaction in question, that there are procedural irregularities in the course of investigation, and that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not satisfied as against him. Accordingly, it has been contended that the present FIR merits quashment at the hands of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers, insofar as it relates to the Petitioner. In support of the aforesaid stance of the Petitioner, several grounds have been urged by the learned Senior Counsel in the CRLMC application, the rejoinder affidavit, and during the course of arguments. The sum and substance of the grounds urged is as under; a. At the very outset, it has been stated that the FIR in the present case has been registered solely based on the information received from a source and the Petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor has it been shown that the Petitioner has any connection Page 5 of 24 with BRCIL, NALCO or PENTA. The FIR also does not disclose any clear involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged offence. In fact, the Petitioner has been unjustly and illegally implicated at a later stage during the course of investigation without there being any fresh or substantive material justifying such inclusion. It has been reiterated that the Petitioner has neither participated in any of the acts constituting the alleged offence nor has he derived any benefit therefrom. He is also not in possession of any purported proceeds of the alleged crime. b. Moreover, mere recovery of cash from the Petitioner's vehicle, without any demonstrable nexus with the alleged bribery transaction, cannot by itself constitute valid grounds for implicating him in the purported offence. Such recovery, devoid of corroborative evidence linking the Petitioner to the alleged act, fails to satisfy even the basic threshold of criminal liability. Additionally, it has been contended that the actions of the investigative agency appear to extend beyond the legitimate scope of investigation. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has been repeatedly pressured to provide information concerning individuals who are entirely unconnected to the case at hand. Such conduct of the CBI suggests at the misuse of investigative powers. Page 6 of 24 c. With regard to the “independent witnesses” cited by the CBI, it has been submitted that such individuals have, in fact, been procured by the prosecuting agency and were not actually present at the scene of the alleged incident. This raises serious doubts regarding the authenticity and credibility of the evidence relied upon by the CBI. d. It has been firmly stated that the Petitioner is a private individual with no connection whatsoever to the alleged transaction or the public officials involved therein. Moreover, even after the lapse of several months since the alleged incident, the CBI has not produced any incriminating material or filed any charge-sheet against the Petitioner. The entire case, therefore, rests solely on conjectures and inferences, without an iota of evidence having been accumulated by the prosecution to justify the implication of the Petitioner in the alleged crime. e. Next, it was stated that the Petitioner was not arrested at the time of the purported transaction. Instead, he was apprehended only after he had returned to the café. This circumstance negates the essential requirement of “immediate arrest” that is fundamental to a lawful trap proceeding, thereby undermining the credibility of the CBI‟s modus operandi in the present case. Page 7 of 24 f. So far as the Observation-cum-Recovery Memorandum (“the Memo”) under Annexure-2 is concerned, it has been stated that the CBI team prepared a site plan to track the accused persons near the forest road. However, no such site plan was prepared for the time or place where the alleged main operation took place. Furthermore, the Observation memo reveals that the Petitioner was called from inside the café and was not even present at the spot where the alleged transaction occurred. Moreover, it has also been contended that the Memo does not contain vital information regarding the site map of the relevant location and a clear chronological record of events. No timings have also been mentioned either for the alleged transaction or for the movements of the parties involved, rendering the document unreliable and incomplete. g. Regarding the actual delivery of cash, it has been submitted that the Memo makes no reference whatsoever to any actual delivery of cash to the Petitioner. It fails to specify the exact person who purportedly delivered the bribe, the point of time when the transaction occurred and in what manner such delivery occurred. h. Referring to the Counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party-CBI, it was submitted that in the said counter affidavit, the Opposite Party-CBI has subsequently advanced a wholly Page 8 of 24 unsubstantiated claim that the bribe amount was handed over by Mr.Mukherjee to the Petitioner. This assertion is entirely contrary to the contents of the Memo. i. The alleged transaction was actually between Mr.Mukherjee and Mr.Moharana. The primary allegation, even as per the CBI‟s own case, concerns Mr.Mukherjee and Mr.Moharana alone. It was submitted that as per the FIR the alleged bribe amount was to be adjusted towards future billings of Mr.Moharana and no element of gratification can be attributed to the present Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner‟s alleged involvement arises merely from the assertion that he allegedly exited the café and kept a carry bag in his car. Such an act, in itself, does not constitute an offence or establish any element of bribery. Also, the contention of the Opposite Party-CBI that the Petitioner was the „facilitator‟ in the alleged crime in order to protect the public servant from legal proceedings, does not hold any ground since it does not attract the ingredients of the sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the PC Act or even section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. j. It was further submitted that, hypothetically even if the allegations are considered true, then, on CBI‟s own showing, the alleged bribe amount was purportedly transferred from Mr.Moharana, a private person, to the Petitioner, who is also a private individual. Page 9 of 24 The transaction, therefore, even on its face, would be between two private individuals which would place the alleged transaction outside the purview of the PC Act. Moreover, the Memo also does not disclose any instance of gratification being received by a public servant at the behest of the Petitioner or his company. Notwithstanding the same, the Petitioner and the Petitioner‟s company (i.e. the Petitioner in CRLMC No.347 of 2025) have repeatedly been issued summons u/s 94 of the BNSS and are being harassed by the Opposite Party-CBI, which is an indication of the vindictive and malafide intention of the CBI. k. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner has also pointed out some apparent procedural irregularities in the present case. It was stated that even though the Petitioner‟s vehicle was seized, the same has neither been reflected in the Memo nor in the Arrest Memo prepared at the time of detention. It was also contended that the Creta car, in which both Mr.Moharana and Mr.Mukherjee were travelling, has not been seized by the CBI. l. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner has expressed his reservation regarding the Opposite Party-CBI‟s contention of an “extended spot of arrest”, and it has been stated that the same is legally untenable, particularly since the office premises of BRCIL, Page 10 of 24 located at Janpath, Bhubaneswar, is situated approximately five kilometres away from the alleged place of occurrence. There are also inconsistencies regarding the time and date of arrest of the Petitioner as recorded in the Arrest Memo (i.e. 08.12.2024 at 1140 hrs) and the Observation Memo (i.e. on 07.12.2024). m. Additionally, it has been stated that the investigating agency‟s insistence on obtaining the Petitioner‟s electronic passwords and compelling disclosure of material from his personal devices constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 20(3). Such compulsion to provide potentially incriminating information amounts to a breach of the Petitioner‟s right against self-incrimination, as well as his right to privacy and personal liberty. This coercive demand cannot be justified under the guise of investigation, particularly in the absence of any