Allowed

Bikram Keshari Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Jul 2026CRLMC/422/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A decorated police Inspector charge-sheeted as Accused No.33 in a third supplementary charge sheet over illegal stone quarrying, after two earlier investigators had cleared him on identical evidence, sought quashing of cognizance under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court found mala fide prosecution within Category 7 of Bhajan Lal, held Section 197 sanction unnecessary, and quashed proceedings again

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 21.06.2021 and Second Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 27.05.2021 quashed insofar as they implicate the Petitioner; interim orders vacated.

Bikram Keshari Jena Vs State of Odisha — Corruption | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

CRLMC No.422 of 2024

¶4

(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).

¶5

Bikram Keshari Jena …. Petitioner(s)

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha Opposite Party (s)

¶8

Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode :

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr. Arya Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Navneet Dadhichi, Adv. : For Opposite Party (s) Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA

¶10

CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

¶11

DATE OF HEARING:-05.05.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026

¶12

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

¶13

1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda in G.R. Case No.486 of 2019 arising out STF P.S. Case No.07 of 2019 against the Petitioner.

¶14

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

¶15

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶16

Page 1

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶18

(i) The Petitioner, being the Inspector-in-Charge of Khurda Sadar P.S., Khu7rda concerning over the illegal stone quarrying at Tapanga, Durgapur, Chhatrama and Kaipadar villages, addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Khurda requesting him to convene a meeting to address the issue of illegal stone quarrying.

¶19

(ii) Between 2016 and 2019, the Petitioner, along with other police officials of Khurda District, detained the vehicles of several persons and prosecuted them for transporting illegally mined laterite stones, gravel, sand, etc. During this period, the vehicles of Ranjan Kumar Mohapatra, Basanta Kumar Sahoo, Sukuta @ Lingaraj Parida, and Basant Sahoo were also detained for the same reason, and the said persons were prosecuted by the Petitioner along with other police officials of Khurda District.

¶20

(iii) On 01.06.2019, Pravin Chandra Tripathy, Dy. S.P., Special Task Force (STF), Bhubaneswar, registered STF P.S. Case No. 07/2019 under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 12 of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and Other Unlawful Activities) Act, 1988, against 21 accused persons.

¶21

(iv) Notably, the FIR was registered on the basis of statements made by Sana @ Dushasan Behera during interrogation in STF P.S. Case No. 06/2019. Pursuant to registration of the FIR, Mr. R.C. Thumb, Dy. S.P., STF, was appointed as the first Investigating Officer (1st

¶22

Page 2

¶23

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶24

I.O.).It is pertinent to note that neither the accused persons interrogated in STF P.S. Case No.06/2019 nor the FIR dated 01.06.2019 in STF P.S. Case No. 07/2019 named the Petitioner.

¶25

(v) Following registration of the FIR, statements of six accused truck owners, namely, Ranjan Kumar Mohapatra, Narayan Sahu, Asim Routray, Lingaraj Parida, Basanta Kumar Sahoo, and Sukuta @ Lingaraj Parida, were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These persons allegedly implicated the Petitioner by claiming that he facilitated transportation of illegally mined stones by accepting money through a Home Guard named Chittaranjan Badajena. According to the Petitioner, these accused persons falsely implicated him out of vengeance because he had earlier prosecuted them.

¶26

(vi) While the Petitioner was scheduled to receive the President's Police Medal for Meritorious Service on 15.08.2019 (Independence Day), the first Investigating Officer, R.C. Thumb, acting under the instructions of senior police officials, issued a notice dated 13.08.2019 under Section 160 Cr.P.C. directing the Petitioner to appear before the STF Office, Bhubaneswar, on 17.08.2019 for interrogation in connection with STF P.S. Case No. 07/2019.As a result, the Petitioner was prevented from receiving the prestigious President's Police Medal.

¶27

(vii) In the charge sheet dated 27.09.2019, the first Investigating Officer charge-sheeted nine accused persons for commission of offences punishable under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and

¶28

Page 3

¶29

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶30

34 IPC, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Rule 51 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016.

¶31

(viii) Importantly, the Petitioner was not named in the charge sheet. After analysing the Petitioner's Call Detail Records (CDRs), examining witnesses, and disbelieving the statements of the six truck drivers, the Investigating Officer effectively gave the Petitioner a clean chit.

¶32

(ix) On 04.10.2019, the first Investigating Officer submitted Charge Sheet No.17 dated 27.09.2019 before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, which took cognizance of the offences against the nine accused persons.

¶33

(x) Apprehending arrest in STF P.S. Case No. 07/2019, the Petitioner filed ABLAPL No. 16214 of 2019 before this Court on 04.11.2019 seeking anticipatory bail.This Court called for a status report. After the first Investigating Officer submitted the status report on 16.08.2020, the Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.08.2020.

¶34

(xi) After transfer of the first Investigating Officer, Smt. Bilasini Nayak became the second Investigating Officer (2nd I.O.) and submitted a supplementary charge sheet against 11 additional accused persons under the same provisions of law.Pursuant thereto, the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, issued process against the said accused on 20.02.2020.

¶35

Page 4

¶36

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶37

(xii) Even at this stage, after analysing the Petitioner's CDRs, examining witnesses, and disbelieving the statements of the six truck owners, the second Investigating Officer also did not implicate the Petitioner and effectively gave him a clean chit.

¶38

(xiii) Subsequently, the second Investigating Officer submitted an additional charge sheet dated 27.05.2021 (third charge sheet) against 34 persons, including the Petitioner. The charge sheet relied uponstatements of the six truck owners, statements of independent witnesses, and Call Detail Records (CDRs), although these very materials had earlier been analysed and rejected in the previous two charge sheets.

¶39

(xiv) On 21.06.2021, the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, mechanically issued process against the Petitioner without proper application of mind.

¶40

(xv) 2nd Investigating Officer, in a wholly mechanical manner and without properly examining the six criminal truck owners and their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., without considering the statement of accused Chittaranjan Badajena recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., without interrogating any independent witnesses, without examining the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the Petitioner, and without conducting any further investigation, has falsely and wrongly implicated the Petitioner in the 3rd charge-sheet.

¶41

Page 5

¶42

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶43

(xvi) Further, no previous sanction, as mandated under Section 197 Cr.P.C., has been obtained prior to initiation of proceedings against the Petitioner.

¶44

(xvii) The Petitioner alleges that the second Investigating Officer mechanically relied upon the earlier statements without conducting any further investigation or re-examining the witnesses. She also failed to collect or analyse the Petitioner's CDRs. Hence, the Petitioner has filed this CRLMC seeking appropriate reliefs.

¶45

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

¶46

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶47

(i) The Petitioner herein, while serving as Inspector-in-Charge of Khordha Sadar Police Station, acted as a whistleblower and had initiated in motion prosecution against illegal quarrying activities vide letter dated 23.08.2017 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Khordha. In the meantime, the Special Task Force (STF) registered FIR No. 7/2019 dated 01.06.2019 and, upon completion of investigation, submitted Charge Sheet vide STF C.S. No. 17 dated 27.09.2019 before the learned SDJM, Khordha. Thereafter, First Supplementary Charge Sheet No. 5 dated 20.02.2020 was also submitted. The name of the present Petitioner does not find place either in the FIR, the Charge Sheet, or the First Supplementary Charge Sheet submitted by the investigating agency.

¶48

Page 6

¶49

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶50

(ii) Subsequently, a new Investigating Officer submitted the 2^nd Supplementary Charge Sheet vide Charge Sheet No.20 dated 27.05.2021, wherein the present Petitioner was arraigned as Accused No.33.

¶51

(iii) The allegation against the Petitioner is that he had allegedly been collecting money from the co-accused persons, who had already been named and implicated in the original Charge Sheet as well as the 1st Supplementary Charge Sheet, and was permitting illegal transportation of illegally quarried materials.The Petitioner has been charged for offences punishable under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with the relevant provisions of the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act.

¶52

(iv) The basis of implication of the Petitioner is stated to be the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of certain co-accused persons, the Legal Interception (LI) of the Petitioner’s mobile number, the transcript whereof was allegedly available with the Investigating Officer, and the Call Detail Records (CDRs) pertaining to Mobile Nos.9437057002, 9437777745, and 9438045905.

¶53

(v) On the basis of the aforesaid materials, the learned SDJM, Khordha took cognizance vide order dated 21.06.2021 in G.R. Case No. 486/2019 arising out of STF P.S. Case No. 7/2019.

¶54

(vi) Being aggrieved by the said order of cognizance and implication in the 2nd Supplementary Charge Sheet, the Petitioner has preferred the present CRLMC.

¶55

Page 7

¶56

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶57

(vii) The Petitioner is a decorated police officer and exemplary service record, having earned the distinction of being the first police officer from the State of Odisha to be awarded the President’s Medal for Meritorious Service. Further, as is evident from the letter dated 09.08.2019, in recognition of his dedicated, distinguished, and meritorious service, the Petitioner was also nominated to receive the prestigious “Medal for Investigation” instituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on 15.08.2019.

¶58

(viii) The six co-accused truck owners, acting in active connivance with senior police officials and colleagues of the Petitioner, falsely implicated the present Petitioner in their statements on account of his having previously prosecuted them in the discharge of his official duties. This crucial aspect, never examined by the 2^nd Investigating Officer while arraigning the Petitioner as an accused in the 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet.

¶59

(ix) The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal¹ has held as follows:

¶60

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse

¶61

1 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335

¶62

Page 8

¶63

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶64

of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.....

¶65

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. ”

¶66

(x) Pursuant to the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by this Court, a Reply/Objection Affidavit dated 20.04.2026 sworn by Sri Pradipa Kumar Rout, Deputy Superintendent of Police, STF, Bhubaneswar was filed on behalf of the State/Opposite Party in the present proceedings. From the said affidavit read with the 2^nd Supplementary Charge-sheet dated 27.05.2021 it is apparent that the Legal Interception ( L.I. ) of the Petitioner's telephone calls, forms a critical pillar of the prosecution's case and is therefore directly pertinent to the prayerfor quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶67

(xi) The Petitioner submits that the State's Affidavit, while annexing the Notification dated 28.04.2018, the SOP issued by the Government in the Home Department, and the communication dated 20.07.2020, conspicuously fails to address the substantive challenge to the constitutionality and procedural compliance of the L.I. The State has merely asserted compliance in an ipse dixit manner, without placing material facts before this Hon'ble Court

¶68

Page 9

¶69

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶70

that would permit a meaningful examination of whether the legal safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court and the applicable statutory rules were indeed followed.

¶71

(xii) The prosecution's case against the Petitioner, as disclosed in the charge-sheet, is substantially premised on the content of the intercepted conversations (as transcribed by an Odia Lecturer of Utkal University, not merely the fact that calls were made. The CDR evidence, therefore, does not independently sustain the charge-sheet without the L.I. conversation content. Separating the CDRs from the illegally obtained conversation content would leave the prosecution without any substantive evidence of the Petitioner's participation in the alleged offences.

¶72

(xiii) The allegations leveled against the Petitioner have got reasonable nexus with the discharge of his official duty as IIC, Sardar P.S., Khurda and as mandated under section 197 Cr. P.C., previous sanction from the competent authority was required to be taken before the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda issued process against the Petitioner. In this regard it is submitted that no such previous sanction has been taken and therefore the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, issuing process against the Petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside. When process is issued (summons/warrant) by a court without the requisite sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the proceedings are not merely irregular or voidable, they are void ab initio. The entirefoundation of the prosecution against the public servant

¶73

Page 10

¶74

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶75

collapses. The Supreme Courthas consistently held that cognizance itself is the forbidden act, and since process flowsfrom cognizance, everything that follows is equally tainted and liable to be quashed.

¶76

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶77

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶78

(i) The Government in Home Department, vide Notification No. 1068/C dated 28.04.2018, was pleased to authorize the ADGP, CID, CB, Odisha, Cuttack, to undertake lawful interception of any message or class of messages transmitted through telephones by the Telephone Service Providers within the State of Odisha in respect of suspects. Pursuant to such authorization, the Legal Interception (“L.I.”) of the Petitioner was undertaken under the orders of the ADGP, CID, CB, Odisha, Cuttack.

¶79

(ii) During the course of the L.I., certain conversations were allegedly found to be objectionable and were accordingly stored and preserved by the investigating agency. Upon analysis of the intercepted conversations, it was alleged that the Petitioner had conversed on several occasions with certain truck owners as well as other accused persons. Relying on such intercepted conversations, the prosecution further asserts that the said truck owners, in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., have purportedly referred to such conversations and attributed

¶80

Page 11

¶81

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶82

a role to the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences for which he has been charge-sheeted.

¶83

(iii) The intercepted conversation was transferred into a Compact Disc (CD) which was transcribed by an Odia Lecturer from the Department of Odia, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, who duly certified the accuracy of the transcription.

¶84

(iv) The original CD, transcription made by the Lecturer of Odia, and other correspondences regarding LI has been duly received by the learned Trial Court on 03.06.2021. No copy of the same has been retained with STF except CDR/SDR. Moreover, as per SOP issued by the Govt. in Home Department vide No.506/C dated 02.03.2013, the LI conversation correspondences and materials have been destroyed after expiry of its retention period.

¶85

(v) No voice sample of the petitioner has been taken to compare with the voice of the conversation. Due procedures have been followed in respect of taking of LI of the petitioner and noirregularity has been committed in this regard.

¶86

(vi) As regards the procedure for collecting CDRs, the same has been requisitioned from the relevant Mobile Phone Company under Sections 91 and 92 of the Cr.P.C. As such, there is no specific procedure prescribed or required to collect CDRs.

¶87

(vii) It is further submitted that the statement of the witnesses, seizure list alongwith other documents available on record reveal that the fact coupled with allegation levelled in the

¶88

Page 12

¶89

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶90

supplementary report clearly made out prima facie case against the accused persons including the Petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 379/411/420/467/468/471/ 120{B)/34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25/ 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 12 OMMC Rule, 2016. Hence, it is contended that learned S.D.J.M., Khurda has righty passed the order dated 21.06.2021 in G.R. Case No.486 of 2019 arising out STF P.S. Case No.07 of 2019 against the Petitioner requiring no interference by this Court.

¶91

IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

¶92

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party–State at considerable length and has traversed the record with the circumspection that the law demands where the liberty, dignity and professional honour of a citizen are in issue. Such scrutiny becomes all the more imperative when the person before the Court is a decorated officer of the law, whose official conduct has been drawn into the vortex of the present proceedings. The materials perused include the FIR dated 01.06.2019, the original Charge Sheet No.17 dated 27.09.2019, the First Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 20.02.2020, the Second Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 27.05.2021, the impugned order of cognizance dated 21.06.2021, and the Reply/Objection Affidavit dated 20.04.2026 filed on behalf of the State pursuant to the order of this Court.

¶93

Page 13

¶94

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶95

6. Three questions present themselves for resolution, each a thread that must be drawn out and examined before the fabric of this prosecution can be said to hold together or to unravel, firstly, whether the order of cognizance dated 21.06.2021 is vitiated for want of previous sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.; secondly, what bearing, if any, the legality and evidentiary worth of the Legal Interception (“L.I.”) has upon the question of quashing; and thirdly, proves to be the fulcrum upon which the entire edifice totters as to whether the chequered history of investigation in this case in which two Investigating Officers twice looked upon the very same evidence and twice turned away from it, only for a third hand to reach for the Petitioner where two before it had not, brings the matter within Category 7 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal² Each thread is now taken up in turn.

¶96

7. It is well settled that the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not co-extensive with the mere status of the accused as a public servant, it extends only to those acts done, or purported to be done, in discharge of his official duty, and the true test is whether a reasonable and rational nexus exists between the act complained of and the official duties of the public servant. It is equally well settled that acceptance of illegal gratification, connivance in an offence, or facilitation of an unlawful activity by a public servant can never be dressed in the borrowed robes of official duty, however artfully the pleadings may attempt the tailoring, official capacity at its highest,

¶97

2 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259

¶98

Page 14

¶99

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶100

opens the door through which temptation walks in - it does not, and cannot, escort the resulting act back out under the cover of duty.

¶101

8. Tested against this settled principle, the allegation here is not that the Petitioner did something within the four corners of his office that incidentally drew complaint, it is that he took money to unmake, with one hand, what he was sworn to build with the other, permitting the very traffic in stolen stone that it was his charge, as Inspector-inCharge, to intercept and prosecute. An act so wholly at war with the duty it purports to shelter behind cannot claim its protection. This Court, therefore, is unable to accept that the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. renders the order of cognizance void ab initio; that plea, though pressed with skill, does not survive the reasonable-nexus test and must fail.

¶102

9. The Legal Interception, upon which the prosecution leans so heavily, was purportedly effected pursuant to Notification No.1068/C dated 28.04.2018 and Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, within the constitutional scaffolding erected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India³ to guard the citizen's right to privacy under Article 21 against the silent intrusion of the State into his private conversation. Where a prosecution chooses to make such intercepted speech its cornerstone, the safeguards attending its collection, custody and continuity cease to be a matter of procedural housekeeping and become the very soil in which the prosecution's case must be shown for its germination.

¶103

3 1997 (1) SCC 301,

¶104

Page 15

¶105

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶106

10. It has not escaped this Court's notice that the original Compact Disc, together with its Odia transcription, was handed over to the learned Trial Court as early as 03.06.2021, that the underlying L.I. material in the custody of the STF has since been consigned to destruction under the applicable retention Standard Operating Procedure and that no voice sample of the Petitioner was ever obtained to test the transcription against the man. These are weighty infirmities, going to the very authenticity of the evidence said to reflect the Petitioner's guilt, yet this Court declines at this threshold, to convert a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. into a forensic inquest upon a chain of custody that has already been broken by the passage of time and the working of its own procedure. Further, inquiry belongs to the Trial Court, and this Court leaves it undisturbed for that Court's searching examination even though not without recording, for what it is worth, that a case built upon an echo whose original voice has since been erased which carries the seeds of its own fragility.

¶107

11. In fact, the record ceases to whisper and begins, unmistakably, to speak. The story it tells is not one that travels in a straight line toward guilt but one that doubles back upon itself not once but twice before arriving on the third occasion at an accusation. Admittedly, the Petitioner's name is absent from the FIR. The first Investigating Officer, having sifted the Petitioner's Call Detail Records, examined witnesses, weighed and found wanting the very statements of the six truck owners now paraded as the prosecution's mainstay, chose not to name him. The second Investigating Officer inheriting the file, walked

¶108

Page 16

¶109

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶110

the same road, examined the same evidence and arrived at the same absolution. Twice, then, was the Petitioner tested upon this anvil and twice was he found not to bear the mark of guilt.

¶111

12. And yet, upon a third and final striking by the very same hand that had, only months before, set him free of suspicion whereby the Petitioner reappears, resurrected as Accused No.33 in the Second Supplementary Charge Sheet, upon no evidence save that which had already been weighed twice and found too light. No new witness stepped forward. No fresh interrogation is shown to have prised loose some hitherto-concealed truth. No forensic discovery altered the complexion of the case. The very same six statements, the very same Call Detail Records, that had failed the test of scrutiny twice, are now offered as though freshly minted. A charge sheet that rises like a phoenix from the ashes of two prior exonerations, without the spark of any new material to kindle it, is not merely unusual in the considered view of this Court, deeply and disquietingly suspect.

¶112

13. This suspicion does not stand alone, it finds an echo in circumstance. It is not disputed that the Petitioner on the very eve of being felicitated with the President's Police Medal for Meritorious Service which is a rare honour for he police force. On the morning, he was to become the first officer in the history of his state to wear the President's Medal for Meritorious Service pinned to his chest, Inspector Bikram Keshari Jena received instead a summons. Not a summons from history, but from the very machinery he had spent a career serving. A notice under Section 160, delivered with the quiet

¶113

Page 17

¶114

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶115

precision of men who knew exactly what they were interrupting. Twice before, investigators had turned his phone records over in their hands, weighed the word of six aggrieved truck owners against the shape of the evidence, and set him free. Twice, his name had not survived the scrutiny. But some prosecutions, like certain debts are never truly closed rather they wait, patient as silt at the bottom of a riverbed, for someone willing to stir them up a third time. And on the eve of his felicitation, he was singled out as the first officer of this State to be so recognized was served, at the instance of senior officials, with a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. that ensured he never received it. It is further submitted that he six truck owners whose word now

¶116

anchors the prosecution had themselves been prosecuted at the Petitioner's own hand in the discharge of his duty, and thus carried between them a reservoir of resentment ready to be drawn upon, is also not seriously disputed. Individually, each of these circumstances might be dismissed as coincidence; but coincidence, when it recurs with such regularity and such convenient timing begins to wear the unmistakable countenance of design.

¶117

14. This Court is not blind to the caution that must attend the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is a jurisdiction that must be wielded as a scalpel and never as a bludgeon, and never merely because two versions of a story compete for belief. But Category 7 of Bhajan Lal(supra) exists precisely to arrest prosecutions that have crossed the line from the pursuit of truth into the pursuit of a man and where, as here, the very officers entrusted

¶118

Page 18

¶119

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶120

with investigation twice declared the accusation unworthy of belief, only for it to be revived without a shred of new material and where that revival follows hard upon the heels of a public humiliation calculated to wound a decorated officer at the moment of his felicitation. This Court would fail in its duty as sentinel of justice if the officer is consigned to the ordeal of a trial that the record itself on a fair and holistic reading which does not support the prosection. The threshold for interference is not a mere possibility of mala fidem, it is met where mala fide stares out from the record without need of a magnifying glass. That threshold as this Court finds stands crossed.

¶121

15. In the result, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of prosecution against the Petitioner under the Second Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 27.05.2021 and the consequent order of cognizance dated 21.06.2021, amount to nothing less than an abuse of the process of the Court, actuated as they are by circumstances bespeaking mala fide and vengeance within the meaning of Category 7 of State of Bhajan Lal (suupra). If this court permits this prosecution to limp on to trial upon a foundation already twice examined and twice rejected by the State's own investigative machinery would be to allow the criminal process to be pressed into service not as a shield for society but as an instrument of private vendetta wearing the mask of public prosecution.

¶122

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER:

¶123

16. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the CRLMC is allowed. The order of cognizance dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,

¶124

Page 19

¶125

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2026 19:52:23

¶126

Khurda in G.R. Case No.486 of 2019 arising out of STF P.S. Case No.07 of 2019, and the Second Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 27.05.2021, are hereby quashed in so far as they relate to and implicate the present Petitioner. The proceeding shall stand continued against the remaining accused persons named in the original Charge Sheet and the First Supplementary Charge Sheet, uninfluenced by any observation made herein as the same is confined to the present petitioner alone.

¶127

17. It is, however, made clear that nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion upon the guilt or innocence of the remaining accused persons nor as foreclosing the right of the investigating agency to proceed against the Petitioner afresh, strictly in accordance with law, if any credible and genuinely new material as opposed to a mere re-reading of what has already been twice weighed and found wanting come to light hereafter.

¶128

18. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of.

¶129

19. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stand vacated.

¶130

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶131

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 14^th July, 2026/

¶132

Page 20

Bikram Keshari Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikram Keshari Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debendra Kumar Bag Vs State of Odisha

Sumanta Kumar Nayak Vs the State of Odisha

Sanjay Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Subash Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Chhutu@Chotu@Kishore Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

G.R.Arun Kumar Vs Asst. Director of Factories and Boilers, Kalahandi Zone I/C, Bhawanipatna