'Bail Is Rule, Jail Is Exception': Orissa High Court Grants Bail To ED Dy Director Chintan Raghuvanshi In Graft Case
The Orissa High Court has granted bail to Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED) Chintan Raghuvanshi who is accused of demanding bribe in return of giving relief to an accused (complainant here) in an enforcement case.While granting the bail, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy gave due consideration to the fact that the petitioner did...
The Orissa High Court has granted bail to Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED) Chintan Raghuvanshi who is accused of demanding bribe in return of giving relief to an accused (complainant here) in an enforcement case.
While granting the bail, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy gave due consideration to the fact that the petitioner did not misuse his liberty while he was out on interim bail, coupled with the fact that there is bleak possibility of trial being conducted in near future.
“Right now the investigation is going on, but as to when the trial would commence is not known and it would be undesirable to keep a person in confinement on the expectation that the trial would commence on one day, unless there appears strong prima facie material against such accused person and the offences are punishable with imprisonment for life or death.”
The petitioner, while serving as the Deputy Director of ED, allegedly demanded and accepted a part of bribe amount to the tune of rupees twenty lakhs in return of providing relief to the complaint in the form of not attaching his properties and refraining from his arrest in connection with an ED case.
Accordingly, an FIR for commission of offence under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against petitioner Raghuvanshi along with co-accused Bhakti Binod Behera (the second petitioner herein). They applied for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Senior Advocates Ashok Parija and Soura Chandra Mohapatra appeared for the petitioner-Raghuvanshi to argue that the complainant, being a repeated offender having 13-14 FIRs against him, colluded with the CBI to frame the petitioner in the case. The advanced stage of investigation so also lack of misuse of liberty during interim bail were also cited in favour of the petitioner to substantiate his case for bail.
Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI Sarthak Nayak opposed the plea citing flight risk as well as the influential status of the petitioners. He peculiarly highlighted the admission made by the first petitioner before the complainant regarding his properties worth 500-600 crores. The CBI Counsel argued that such claim needs to be investigated properly and release of the petitioners at this stage may hamper a fair probe.
Justice Satapathy gave due weightage to the admitted position that the investigation has progressed substantially while there is no immediate possibility of trial. Therefore, he held, the petitioners cannot be detained on the premise that the investigation shall commence one day.
“...the petitioner-Chintan Raghuvanshi is a Government official and, thereby, there would not be any difficulty to secure his attendance at the trial, but even if considering the argument of the CBI counsel to consider the petitioner to be a flight risk, such apprehension can be curbed by imposing appropriate conditions like directing the petitioners to deposit their passports or not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case,” he added.
The Court also acknowledged that both the petitioners duly cooperated during the investigation and even shared passwords of their mobile phones. The petitioner Raghuvanshi, it further observed, did not misuse his liberty while he was out of custody on interim bail.
Resultantly, having regard for the facts of the case coupled with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577, the Court deemed proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail with a bail bonds of one lakh rupees each along with sureties of like amount with several stringent conditions.
Case Title: Chintan Raghuvanshi & Anr. v. Republic of India (CBI)
Case No: BLAPL Nos. 6437 & 6342 of 2025
Date of Order: July 23, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija & Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Chitta Ranjan Kanungo, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 98