The court reaffirmed the principle that further investigation remains permissible post charge-sheet, emphasizing the discretion of courts regarding interim custody of seized property to prevent undue hardship.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition the Petitioner/CBI seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-01), Bhubaneswar releasing the seized articles on zimanama and to direct that the mobile phones, laptop, gold items and documents remain in official custody pending completion of further investigation.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The present CRLMC/482 petition (corresponding to S. 528 BNSS) challenges the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Spl. Judge, CBI-01, Bhubaneswar in Case No. 09/22 (RC 216 2022 A0009) directing release of seized articles on zimanama.

(ii) The RC was registered on 03.08.2022 on source information alleging a bribery-conspiracy involving Saroj Kumar Das (CME, Paradip Port Authority) and others, under S. 120B IPC read with provisions of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended, 2018).

(iii) A search at the residential premises of Saroj Kumar Das was conducted on 04.08.2022, and articles including three mobile phones, one laptop, gold items, and property documents/papers were seized as per search list.

(iv) The CBI filed charge-sheet on 03.10.2022 against multiple accused (including the public servant and private individuals/company), and the case proceeded to cognizance.

(v) The accused Saroj Kumar Das moved an application under S. 457 CrPC seeking interim release of the seized items; the Trial Court allowed release of the articles (including the mobile phones, laptop, jewellery, and documents) on execution of zimanama and undertaking to produce them when required.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) The impugned order is assailed as arbitrary/illegal, principally because it proceeds on the premise that “investigation is completed” and that “question of further investigation does not arise.”

(ii) The petitioner asserts this premise is factually incorrect, as the charge-sheet itself records that further investigation is kept open (including voice samples, forensic examination, digital data extraction, source of bribe amount, and roles of other suspects), and a supplementary report under S. 173(8) CrPC is contemplated.

(iii) It is argued that release of seized articles will prejudice further investigation and trial, especially where items are claimed to be digital evidence and/or are under scrutiny for proceeds of crime/asset trail.

(iv) The petitioner specifically challenges release of one mobile phone (MR No. 2063/2022) on the ground that it is a relied-upon article forming part of the charge-sheet material, and its release may compromise evidentiary integrity.

(v) The petitioner also objects to release of gold items (MR No. 2065/2022) and property documents (MR No. 2072/2022) stating valuation/scrutiny is pending and such material is relevant to the alleged corruption/asset acquisition angle.

(vi) A further contention is that the Trial Court wrongly exercised power under S. 457 CrPC for an article already relied upon/produced with the charge-sheet, and that keeping the seized articles in CBI malkhana in sealed condition avoids deterioration and preserves chain of custody.

(vii) The petitioner emphasizes pendency of proceedings connected to voice samples (including a stated pending petition before the High Court) to show that further investigative steps are live and dependent on electronic material.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER COURT:

4. The Analysis of the Order of the Lower Court is as follows:

(i) The Trial Court reco