The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 02. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2047 of 2025 Subhasini Dalei ..... Appellant State Of Odisha(vig.) -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Chandrakanta Nayak Respondent Represented By Adv. – Mr.N.Moharana, Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 30.07.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department. Perused the CRLMC Application and the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the accused-Petitioner, who is a lady, aged about 57 years with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in Crl.Misc.Case No.56 of 2025 arising out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S.Case No.66 of 2019 corresponding to VGR Case No.73 of 2019. Page 1 of 5. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Bhubaneswar Vigilance Police Station registered an F.I.R. dated 05.12.2019 implicating the Petitioner and her husband as accused persons for commission of an offence punishable under sections 13(1)(b), 13(2) & 12 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The F.I.R. further reveals that the husband of the Petitioner, who happens to be a Government servant has been implicated in a case of acquiring disproportionate assets. Although the F.I.R. was registered on 05.12.2019, however till date no Charge Sheet has been filed. Therefore, the investigation is still open. 5. While the investigation was going on in the present case, an application was filed at the instance of the present Petitioner with a prayer to allow her to operate the Bank locker wherein she has kept her gold ornaments. It is not disputed by the parties that the gold ornaments weighing about 399.92 grams approximately were kept in the locker. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that the Petitioner who is the wife of a Government employee and lawful owner of the gold ornaments, which has been kept in the locker, is unable to use those gold ornaments. In the meantime, more than five years have been elapsed and the Vigilance Police has not submitted Charge Sheet in the case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that necessary orders be passed to release the properties owned by her. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner Page 2 of 5. contended that rejection of her application to allow her to operate the Bank locker by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, vide order dated 29.04.2025 under Annexure-4 to the CRLMC, is not in accordance with law and the same be accordingly quashed. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance department on the other hand contended that the Petitioner and her husband have been implicated in a case of disproportionate assets. He further submitted that the investigation is still on and no charge sheet has been filed as of now. In such view of the matter, learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department contended that in the event the Petitioner is allowed to operate the locker, there is a possibility that she may take away the gold ornaments and eventually the same will not able to be produced at the time of trial. On such ground, learned Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department contended that the learned court below has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 29.04.2025 in Criminal Misc.Case No.56 of 2025. Further, it is contended that the application filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts involved in the present case, this Court found that the F.I.R. was lodged on 05.12.2019 implicating the Petitioner and her husband in a case of disproportionate assets. Although more than five years have been elapsed, no charge sheet Page 3 of 5. has been filed as of now. It further appears that in course of investigation, the bank locker belonging to the Petitioner has been seized by the Vigilance department and the Petitioner is unable to operate such locker, as has been alleged by the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner has kept her gold ornaments in the Bank locker. Since the Bank locker has been seized, she is unable to operate the B ank locker, which belongs to her. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is deprived of her right to use her property. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that she is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that will be imposed by this Court in the event the Petitioner is allowed to operate the Bank locker. 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis and further keeping in view the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Petitioner is the owner of the ornaments that have been kept in the Bank locker and that no charge sheet has been filed in the meantime although more than five years have elapsed, therefore, this Court, in the larger interest of justice, is inclined to permit the Petitioner to use those ornaments kept in the locker. Further, this Court directs that an inventory of the articles kept in the Bank locker be conducted in presence of the Petitioner and the I.O. of the case. On the basis of such inventory, the I.O. shall permit the Petitioner to operate the Bank locker subject to her furnishing an undertaking before the I.O. that she shall furnish the gold ornaments as and when required Page 4 of 5. during trial. She shall also furnish an undertaking that she shall not change the nature and character of the ornaments and shall not dispose/alienate or create any third party interest on such gold articles in any manner whatsoever. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction the CRLMC stands disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Aug-2025 11:17:24