'No Immediate Prospect Of Trial': Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Suspended IAS Dhiman Chakma In Alleged Bribery Case
The Orissa High Court has granted bail to suspended Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Dhiman Chakma in a case relating to demand and receipt of bribe to the tune of rupees ten lakh while working as the Sub-Collector of Dharmagarh in the district of Kalahandi.The Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy remarked that the trial in the case is not likely to be completed soon and...
The Orissa High Court has granted bail to suspended Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Dhiman Chakma in a case relating to demand and receipt of bribe to the tune of rupees ten lakh while working as the Sub-Collector of Dharmagarh in the district of Kalahandi.
The Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy remarked that the trial in the case is not likely to be completed soon and also observed –
“Be that as it may, the petitioner is a public servant and one of the factor which is relevant for the purpose of bail is the securing his attendance at the trial and such factor can be looked at by taking into consideration the status of the petitioner and his roots in the society which also includes his service in Government Department.”
To put briefly the accusation, the petitioner, being an IAS officer working as Sub-Collector of Dharmagarh Sub-Division, had demanded bribe of rupees ten lakhs from a businessman, who subsequently informed the same to the Vigilance officials. Accordingly, a trap was laid and he was captured while receiving the bribe amount.
An FIR was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was arrested and is in custody since June 09, 2025. He applied for bail to the High Court under Section 483 (akin to Section 439, CrPC) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Advocate Devashis Panda appearing for petitioner argued that the investigation has reached its fag end and merely the formality of submission of charge-sheet is left. Further, the offence which he is accused of is not punishable beyond seven years in jail. Above all, he is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, it was argued that in absence of any requirement for custodial interrogation, he must be extended the benefit of bail.
The Court acknowledged the fact that the investigation has substantially progressed. Though it was pointed out by the Vigilance Department that unaccounted cash of rupees forty seven lakhs was recovered along with some foreign currencies, the Court refused to take into account such recovery in the absence of any formal proceeding initiated by the State in respect of the same.
So far as his attendance during the trial was concerned, the Court was of the view that he being a public servant of such a status, it is unlikely that he will flee the course of justice. Even if there is any flight risk, it said, the same can be tackled with by asking the petitioner to surrender his passport and not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the country.
Referring to Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577, it was held that if the Court is satisfied, after taking into account, on the basis of information placed before it.that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, it can safely release the accused on his personal bond.
Therefore, having consideration for the fact that the statements of the complainant as well as the accompanying witnesses have been recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS (pari materia to Section 164, CrPC) and the voice sample of the petitioner has already been taken, the Court had no reason to believe that the petitioner shall influence the investigation if enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the bail petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a bail bond of rupees five lakhs with one solvent surety for the like amount. Several stringent conditions were imposed including the requirement to surrender his passport and to swear on affidavit, in case he does not possess the same.
The trial Court was given liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in case of violation of any of the conditions. Any subsequent involvement in similar or grave offences on prima facie accusations shall also be treated as a ground for cancellation of his liberty.
Case Title: Dhiman Chakma v. State of Odisha (Vig.)
Case No: BLAPL No. 6318 of 2025
Date of Order: July 24, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Das, Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 97