New Delhi: Noting the necessity of an “unhindered and unimpeded” probe, the Orissa High Court Monday rejected the anticipatory bail application of senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Bishnupada Sethi in an alleged bribery case that the CBI is currently investigating.
The Orissa High Court decision came as a bench of Justice V. Narasingh accepted a submission by the Central Bureau of Investigation that granting pre-arrest bail would render their interrogation of the IAS officer a “fruitless exercise”.
The CBI raided the premises of Bishnupada Sethi, a 1995-batch IAS officer, in February this year after his name surfaced in a bribery case involving Chanchal Mukherjee, the group general manager of the central public sector undertaking (PSU) Bridge & Roof Co. Ltd. Months earlier in December 2024, the CBI had arrested Chanchal Mukherjee allegedly for accepting a Rs 10 lakh bribe from Santosh Moharana, the director of Bhubaneshwar-based real estate firm Penta A Studio Pvt Ltd.
Chanchal Mukherjee, the CBI has alleged, demanded the bribe from Moharana in exchange for work orders and bills clearing related to civil construction works that the PSU Bridge & Roof secured and passed on to Penta A Studio.
On the involvement of Bishnupada Sethi, the CBI has alleged that the IAS officer instructed the transfer of the bribe in cash to middleman Debadutta Mohapatra before its handover to Mukherjee. The CBI officers probing the case allegedly recovered the cash from a car in Bhubaneswar and placed the car owner, Mohapatra, under arrest.
The agency has alleged that Bishnupada Sethi met Chanchal Mukherjee on the day set for the bribe transfer to discuss a Rs 50 crore project under the SC/ST department of Odisha. Sethi was heading the department at the time of the alleged offence.
Earlier in August 2024, his daughter received an Apple MacBook and a Rs 1.46 lakh luxury watch from Mohapatra as a bribe, the CBI has alleged.
‘Shadow of corruption’
Hours after the CBI raided Bishnupada Sethi’s residence and other premises linked to him, Sethi wrote an open letter to the Odisha Chief Secretary, alleging harassment by the central agency.
Now, Sethi has moved an anticipatory bail plea, alleging that the CBI brought him into the case solely because of his acquaintance with Chanchal Mukherjee and that his custodial interrogation was not required, considering he always cooperated with the CBI investigation.
In court, his counsel has further argued that the CBI claims of Bishnupada Sethi damaging his two mobile phones and his wife refusing to disclose the details of their lockers during the investigation were not deliberate actions. The agency had blown them out of proportion, the counsel submitted.
Sethi’s counsel also argued that Sethi voluntarily agreed to give his voice sample to the CBI to cooperate with the investigation.
At the same time, the CBI alleged in court that the voice recorded in the phone call made hours before the delivery of the bribe to Mohapatra matched that of Sethi.
“Considering that the petitioner is a senior officer in the rank of Indian Administrative Service, this court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the CBI that his interrogation, being “ensconced” by an order of anticipatory bail, would be a fruitless exercise in the light of the materials unearthed,” Justice V. Narasingh observed in his order.
A common saying is “the power of corruption is like a shadow; it follows those who wield power”, the judge said, adding that Bishnupada Sethi “undoubtedly has the power as a senior official of the Indian Administrative Service”.
“On a conspectus of materials on record, whether corruption is his shadow, merits probe unhindered and unimpeded by the exceptional remedy of pre-arrest bail,” he observed while dismissing Sethi’s plea.
The court, earlier last month, rejected Bishnupada Sethi’s plea to quash the CBI proceedings, calling it a premature move that led to the loss of precious judicial time.
While rejecting Sethi’s plea, Justice S.K. Panigrahi observed in his 20 June order that the extraordinary writ power under Article 226 could not be permitted to be used by individuals—however high-placed—as a shield to fend off legitimate inquiries and reprimanded the petitioners for the “ill-advised litigation”.
“They ought to have first pursued remedies like cooperating with the investigation or approaching the appropriate court, if any specific illegality arose, rather than prematurely approaching the high court,” the court order said, adding that the misuse of the writ jurisdiction had resulted in the diversion of precious judicial time.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)