'Shadow Of Corruption Follows Who Wield Power': Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To IAS Bishnupada Sethi In Bribery Case

The Orissa High Court has rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Bishnupada Sethi in an alleged bribery case which is currently being investigated by the CBI.While expressing disinclination to grant relief to the bureaucrat, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh notably held –“It is often said that power of corruption is like a shadow, it follows those who wield power. The Petitioner undoubtedly has the power being 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.”To put briefly the facts, an FIR was registered by the CBI under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that one Chanchal Mukherjee (Group General Manager, Bridge & Roof Co. Ltd., a CPSU) demanded rupees ten lakhs from Santosh Moharana (Director, M/s Penta A Studio Pvt. Ltd.) as bribe for clearing project bills and taking forward the contract work.The CBI laid a trap on December 07, 2024 which resulted in recovery of cash from one Debadutta Mohapatra who allegedly got the amount from Mukherjee after the latter received the bribe amount. Investigation revealed that prior to the trap, Bishnupada Sethi (Petitioner No.1) had met Mukherjee regarding a ₹50 crore project under the SC/ST Department. It was also alleged that the daughter of the IAS officer had earlier received expensive items from Debadutta Mohapatra. Accordingly, the CBI conducted searches at the official residence of the petitioner and at the college hostel of his daughter, purportedly under judicial warrant. Certain devices were seized and it was also alleged that two lockers were accessed shortly before CBI could intervene and were discovered empty. The CBI complained that the petitioner and his wife did not cooperate in the search and abstained from providing passcodes of devices.The petitioner, being aggrieved by the searches and conduct of the CBI team, had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the probe, which he claimed to have violated his privacy, dignity and reputation. However, a Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi had dismissed the writ petition [Bishnupada Sethi & Ors. v. CBI & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 80] observing harshly as follows –“The extraordinary writ power under Article 226 cannot be permitted to be used as a shield by individuals (howsoever high-placed) to fend off legitimate inquiries. The petitioners are reprimanded for this 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. This misuse of writ jurisdiction has resulted in precious judicial time being diverted.”Subsequently, he had sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest and custodial interrogation. The very basis for his implication in the case was a phone call, which he allegedly made from the number of Mukherjee to Mohapatra instructing the latter to receive the bribe money on his behalf. Advocate Devashis Panda, appearing for the petitioner, referred to Section 349 of the Bharat Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to argue that recording of voice sample of the petitioner is violative of his constitutional right against self-incrimination as provided under Article 20(3). He heavily relied on M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra (1954) to buttress his submission.Pertinent to mention, Section 349 of the BNSS is mostly similar to Section 311-A of the CrPC which provided for the power of Magistrate to order a person to give specimen signature or handwriting etc. However, an important distinction has been made in Section 349, BNSS by including “voice specimen” along with the other specimen already provided under Section 311A of CrPC. Furthermore, under the old regime (CrPC), the specimen could be taken only from the person who has been arrested in connection with the case, but the BNSS has opened the scope for collection of specimen of even a non-arrested person.The Court, however, brushed off such contentions by referring to judgments of the Apex Court in Mohammed Dastagir v. The State of Madras (1960) and Veera Ibrahim v. The State of Maharashtra (1976) where it was held that an evidence to be hit by Article 20(3), the same needs to be recorded under compulsion.“As such, the submission that voice samples are hit by Clause-3 of Article 20 of the Constitution which deals with testimonial compulsion in the given facts of the present case and alleged infraction of Section 349 of BNSS has to be shunned, inter alia, since admittedly the voice sample was given voluntarily,” it held.From forensic analysis, the voice sample of the petitioner matched with that of the person who had telephonically instructed Mohapatra to receive bribe.“This ...

'Shadow Of Corruption Follows Who Wield Power': Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To IAS Bishnupada Sethi In Bribery Case

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags