The court established that at the stage of discharge, the assessment is limited to the existence of a prima facie case based solely on prosecution materials, without delving into evidentiary evaluations.

Judgment:

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore in T.R. Case No.1 of 2025 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge has been called in question in this revision.

2. The background facts of the case are that one Naba Kumar Ray of VIP Colony, Chidiapol, who is a license holder of IMFL Off Shop having License No.02/2019/0024 reported before Superintendent Vigilance, Balasore alleging that he was informed over phone by ASI Pradeep Kumar Mohanty of Chandipur Police Station to meet the newly joined IIC, Ganeswar Pradhan (the Petitioner) for discussion and accordingly, he went to the Chandipur Police Station and the IIC demanded Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month for running the IMFL Off Shop. It is further alleged that when the said Naba Kumar Ray expressed his inability to pay such huge amount and requested to reduce the amount, the IIC stuck to his demand and accordingly, he went to police station where the IIC instructed him to pay the amount by the next day to the A.S.I. Finding no other way, being aggrieved, the said Naba Kumar Ray intimated the fact to the S.P Vigilance Division, Balasore requesting him for initiation of a legal action. On 19.07.2023, the A.S.I. Pradeep Kumar Mohanty asked the said Naba Kumar Ray over phone instructing him to come immediately with demanded money along with one Johnnie Walker Black Label bottle liquor. The telephonic conversation between complainant and Pradeep Kumar Mohanty @ Bali Mohanty was recorded in his mobile phone. The said mobile recording was played before the vigilance staff and thereafter the matter having been registered in Vigilance P.S. Case No.18 of 2023 and a trap was laid. The ASI of Police, was caught red handed while accepting the demanded bribe money amounting to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), investigation commenced and Charge-Sheet was submitted under Section 7 of the PC Act. The Petitioner moved an application before the learned Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore under Section 250 of the BNSS praying for his discharge. The learned trial court having heard the Parties vide the impugned order dated 19.10.2025, declined to grant the prayer. The Petitioner, being aggrieved thereby, moved this application, inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioner has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of the statement of the ASI Pradeep Kumar Mohanty in absence of any convincing material against the Petitioner so also there is no material in respect to the present Petitioner with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe, which constitutes the essential ingredient for framing of charge under Section 7 of P.C. Act can be framed. It is further submitted that the witness Subhendu Kumar Kar (C.S.W-3) has not stated anything incriminating against the Petitioner, and even the complainant has neither clearly nor consistently alleged that the Petitioner demanded or accepted any bribe from him.

3. Mr. Muduli, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of the hearing in the application, submitted that the Complainant is no way connected with the alleged demand or acceptance of bribe by the ASI Pradeep Kumar Mohanty and as such, his implication in the aforesaid offence is based on surmises and conjectures and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned court deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State (Vigilance) on the other hand, vehemently opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and inter alia, drew the attention of this Court to the FIR. He further submitted that the statement of the Complainant and other witne