The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.7667 of 2024 1) Malina Dey 2) Sanjay Dey ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Manamohan Pattnayak Republic Of India -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. - M/s. Sarthak Naik, Counsel for CBI CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 23.08.2024 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as Mr.Sarthak Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI. Perused the records. 3. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioners for bail in connection with R.C.No. 10(A) of 2024 corresponding to CBI/AC-II/New Delhi P.S Case No.RC2172024A0010, dt.28.06.2024 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge CBI-I, Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offence under Section 7,8,9,10 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted Page 1 of 5. by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are in custody since 29.06.2024. He further contended that the investigation has progressed substantially and that further custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. Considering the fact that the petitioners have already been in custody for more than one and half months. With regard to the prosecution allegation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an allegation was made against the petitioners for allegedly accepting bribe to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for floating a tender. He further contended that the tender was floated to the GEM Portal, Government of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that on a search conducted at the residence of the petitioners, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was recovered during such seizure. He further submitted that the petitioners, who was working as the General Manager in Food Corporation of India has been implicated in the present case at the instance of the contractor. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any stringent terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of the release of the petitioners on bail. 5. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the CBI on the other hand objected to the release of the petitioners on bail on the ground that the allegation leveled against the petitioners are grave and serious in nature. Learned counsel for the CBI, further referring to the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, submitted that the present petitioners, who were working as a General Manger at FCI, has aided and favoured one Ms. Soumi Bhattachariya who participated in the tender on behalf of an unknown firm, and that firm has been declared as L-1. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that on 14.06.2024, the present petitioners asked the middle man, one Page 2 of 5. Swapan Kumar Ghosal to inform the above-named Ms. Soumi Bhattachariya to give Rs.5,00,000/- as bribe in lieu of the favour shown to the tenderer. In obedience of such request. on 20.06.2024, the above-named middle man informed the tenderer to meet the present petitioners at the earliest and fulfil his demands. Further, it has been alleged that the above-named tenderer assured the present petitioners that they will deliver a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- at the Bhubaneswar Office on 27.06.2024 which was conveyed to the present petitioners by the middle man who had fixed the meeting between the tenderer and the present petitioners. Accordingly, the meeting took place on 27.06.2024 at Bhubaneswar and pursuant to such meeting on 28.06.2024 the tenderer informed the middle man that the present petitioners have given her his (the present petitioner’s) house keys for delivery of the bribe money at his (the petitioner’s) residence. Accordingly, the bribe money to the tune of Rs.2.5 lakhs was delivered at the residence of the present petitioners. On search of the residential premises of the present petitioners, in the presence of the independent witnesses, the bribe money has been seized. In such view of the matter, Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI submitted that considering the conduct of the present petitioners and taking in account the circumjacent facts of the present case, a clear case under the PC Act is made out against the present petitioners, therefore the prayer for bail of the present petitioners should not be entertained at this juncture. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand disputed the aforesaid allegations. While controverting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the CBI, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amount seized from the house of the present petitioners would amount to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and not Page 3 of 5. Rs.2.5 lakhs as has been alleged by the CBI in their counter- affidavit. Nevertheless, this court is of the view that such contentious factual and circumstantial aspects in the present matter are to be established by both sides during trial by adducing appropriate evidence. 7. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of allegation made against the present petitioners, as well as the fact that the petitioners are an Officer of the Food Corporation of India, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioners on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter subject to the following terms and conditions: I) shall cooperate with investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when required for the purpose of investigation; and II) shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date fixed without fail. III) shall not tamper with any prosecution evidence while on bail. IV) shall surrender his travel documents including passports if any before the trial court at the time of his release on bail. V) shall not leave the jurisdiction without permission of the trial court. VI) shall appear before the S.P., CBI once in a week Page 4 of 5. preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. for a period of four weeks, thereafter once in fortnight for a period of six weeks. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 8. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioners be subject to the condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioners. In the event the Petitioners are having any criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. 9. BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. 11. A free copy of today’s order be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the CBI. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Aug-2024 10:50:17