Disposed

Gitanjali Khuntia v. Republic of India (Cbi)

Orissa HC26 Sept 2024ABLAPL/8630/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a CBI probe into alleged NEET question paper leakage. Petitioners had appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to an earlier order. The Court disposed of the application, directing the Arresting Officer to follow Sections 35(3)(4)(5) BNSS procedure as directed by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil if applicable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gitanjali Khuntia Vs Republic of India (Cbi) — Anticipatory Bail | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.8630 of 2024

¶2

1) Gitanjali Khuntia

¶3

..... Petitioners

¶4

Madhab Khuntia Represented By Adv. – 3) Bashinavi Khuntia Asok Mohanty, Sr. Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Republic Of India (Cbi) ..... Opposite Parties

¶7

Represented By Adv. - Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Counsel for CBI

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

26.09.2024

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶14

Heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Counsel for the CBI. Perused the records.

¶15

This is an application under Section 482, B.N.S.S. filed by the Petitioners for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 120-B/407/408/409 of I.P.C. in notice dated 20.07.2024 issued by the Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Investigation Division CBI/OSPE/EO-III, New Delhi.

¶16

Mr.Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners at the outset submitted that pursuant to order dated 05.09.2024, the Petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer and their statement have already been recorded in the meantime. He further

¶17

Page 1 of 3.

¶18

contended that although the final result of NEET Examination has been published, the Petitioner No.3 has not come out successful in such examination. He further submitted that the Petitioner No.3 is a young girl, unless she is protected by this Court by granting pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood of harassment by the Investigating Agency. On such ground, he further contended that the Petitioners do not have any criminal activity.

¶19

Mr. Nayak, learned Special Counsel for the CBI on the other hand objected to the release of the Petitioners on bail. He further contended that the investigation is still on, therefore, in the event the Petitioners are released on bail, the same would hamper the progress of the investigation. Further referring to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed that stringent actions shall be taken against the person who was found guilty in the alleged leakage of question papers. He further objected to the release of the Petitioners on bail on the ground that the trial is pending before the Court having jurisdiction at Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar. On such ground, he submitted that the petitioners are not entangled to be released on prearrest bail.

¶20

In reply to the aforesaid contention, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Petitioners belong to the State of Odisha and in course of investigation the Investigating Officer issued notice to the Petitioners at their residential address, pursuant to such notice they have been cooperating with the investigation and appearing before the I.O. at the Bhubaneswar Office of the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid factual position, this court deems it proper to dispose of the bail application with an observation that the

¶22

Page 2 of 3.

¶23

Arresting Officer shall do well to follow the produce of under Sections 35 (3) (4) (5) of B.N.S.S. as has been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 , in the event the same is applicable to the facts of the petitioners’ case.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the ABLAPL is disposed of.

¶25

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶26

A free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Counsel for the CBI.

¶27

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶28

Anil

¶29

Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Sep-2024 11:00:48

Gitanjali Khuntia v. Republic of India (Cbi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gitanjali Khuntia v. Republic of India (Cbi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhusasan Barik Vs State of Odisha

Mahendra Behera @ Mahendra Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Arun Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Samrat Das Vs State of Odisha

Seshadeba @ Seshadeb Prusty Vs State of Odisha

Jogendranath Das Vs State of Odisha