Anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and should be denied in corruption cases where substantial evidence exists, to prevent interference with the investigation.

Judgment :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI.

2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with R.C. Case No.17(A) of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge CBI-I, Bhubaneswar arising out of RC21720240017 of CBI, AC-II, New Delhi for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Sections 8 /9/10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Section 61 (2) of the BNS .

3. The allegation against the present Petitioner is that the Petitioner had played pivotal role in the named accused Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee, Group General Manager, Bridge & Roof Co. Ltd. demanding and obtaining a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from one Santosh Moharana, Director, M/s. Penta A Studio Pvt. Ltd. as an illegal gratification for clearing the project bills.

4. It is the case of the CBI that on the basis of source information, a trap was laid on 07.12.2024 and the alleged bribe amount of Rs.10 lakhs was recovered from the vehicle of one Debadutta Mohapatra in the presence of the independent witnesses. The allegation against the present Petitioner, who is a Senior Indian Administrative Service Officer, is that he had acquaintance with the named accused Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee, Group General Manager, Bridge & Roof Co. Ltd. which is a Central Public Sector Undertaking during his incumbency as Secretary, SC & ST Development Department since Bridge & Roof Co. Ltd. was undertaking a projects worth Rs.37 crores of SC & ST Development Department.

It is the further case of the CBI that expensive gifts (a MacBook and a luxury watch) were received by the daughter of the Petitioner from the said Debadutta Mohapatra from whom the money, alleged to have been given as a bribe, was recovered. And, it is the case of the CBI that the Petitioner making a phone call from the phone of named accused Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee prevailed upon the said Debadutta Mohapatra to receive bribe amount of Rs.10 lakhs. It is alleged on the basis of CFSL report that the voice in the call made to Debadutta Mohapatra matched with the voice sample of the Petitioner recorded voluntarily.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Panda submitted that the Petitioner is being roped in only because of his acquaintance with the named accused Chanchal Kumar Mukherjee. Oblivious of the fact that the same was in his official capacity as the Secretary of SC & ST Development Department and it is his further submission that the Petitioner appeared before the CBI as and when summoned, ungrudgingly cooperated even giving voice sample. Thus, considering the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is not warranted. He also submits that there is no credible material to justify the allegation that Petitioner’s daughter received gifts from the said Debadutta Mohapatra.

6. Per contra, learned retainer counsel for the CBI, Mr. Sarthak Nayak, submitted that there is prima facie material to indicate that the Petitioner has actively participated in the alleged crime. He also refutes the submission that the Petitioner has cooperated with the ongoing investigation referring to the objection filed.

As such, he seeks rejection of the pre-arrest bail. Rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner in response.

7. It is apt to note that the Petitioner along with his wife and daughter filed WP(C) No.5905 of 2025 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court seeking following reliefs;

“….… the Petitioners seek a direction from