Presumption of innocence and the principles governing bail dictate that an accused should not remain confined without strong prima facie evidence and the risk of flight or interference must be evaluated critically.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. These are bail applications U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with SPE, CBI, Bhubaneswar Case No.RC0152025A0005 pending in the file of learned Special Judge, CBI-1, Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/S.7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, on the allegation of obtaining/accepting undue advantage in the form of bribe of Rs.20 Lakhs as a part of demanded amount, from the informant for not attaching or arresting him and to settle ED Case No.ECIR/BBZO/20/2020, which was registered against the informant.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who are being assisted by Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6437 of 2025 submits that the informant in this case is a history- sheeter having 13 to 14 FIR lodged against him and in order to get rid of the cases lodged by the ED, the informant has illegally framed the petitioner in this case with the assistance of the CBI by manufacturing a case against him. It is also submitted for the petitioner that the petitioner himself has appeared before the CBI office at about 1.30 AM in the intervening night of 29/30.05.2025 in connection with the case and, thereafter, he was arrested, but the CBI has never sought for any custodial interrogation of the petitioner and since the investigation has progressed substantially, the possibility of influencing the witnesses by the petitioner does not arise. In inviting to the averments of para-6 of the objection of the CBI, Mr. Parija, learned Senior Counsel submits that there is in fact no case made out against the petitioner since the aforesaid averment never reveals about the petitioner demanding or accepting bribe nor any bribe was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who having availed interim bail has surrendered to custody after expiry of the interim bail and, thereby, he does not pose any flight risk nor is there any material to suggest that the petitioner would interfere in the investigation. Accordingly, Mr. Parija, learned Senior Counsel prays to grant bail to the petitioner on any stringent condition.

3.1. In echoing the submission as advanced for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 6437 of 2025, Mr. Chitta Ranjan Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6342 of 2025 submits that the FIR does not disclose anything about the petitioner to have demanded or accepted the bribe and he having detained in custody for 54 days may kindly be granted the benefit of bail. Mr. Kanungo further submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner being punishable maximum up to seven years, the petitioner should have been granted bail in view of the dictum recorded by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2022) 10 SCC 51. It is also submitted by Mr. Kanungo that since the offence is not punishable beyond seven years, the Investigating Agency-cum-CBI should have allowed the petitioner to go on by serving a notice U/S.35(3) of BNSS. It is also submitted for the petitioner that during the custody period of the petitioner, his wife was served with a notice by the CBI, but due to her illness, she could not appear before the CBI, however, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner has been sought for by the CBI and investigation having progressed substantially, there would not be any impediment to grant of bail to