G.SATYANARAYAN vs UNION OF INDIA (CBI)

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No. 797 of 2026


(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita).


G. Satyanarayan & Ors. …. Petitioner(s)
-versus-


Union of India(CBI) …. Opposite Party (s)




Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krushna Chandra Dash, Adv.

For Opposite Party (s) :
Mr. Sarthak Nayak,
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI




CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI



DATE OF HEARING:-16.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.05.2026


Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1.
The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, has assailed the non-
release of his seized mobile phones, laptops, and locker keys, despite
repeated directions/orders dated 09.01.2026 and 11.02.2026 passed by
the learned Trial Court/Special Judge (CBI Court No. 1), Bhubaneswar,
in CMC No. 101 of 2025 arising out of RC Case No. 05(A) of 2025. The
said case has been instituted for the alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018, read with Section 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code.

Page 1

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE :
2.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 28.06.2024, an F.I.R. bearing No. RC2172024A0010 was
initially registered against one Sri Prem Singh Bhanot, the then
General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Odisha Region,
Bhubaneswar. During the course of investigation in the said case,
it was alleged that the said accused had received bribe amounts
through different middlemen, including the Petitioners, from
various accounts.

(ii) Resultantly, a second F.I.R. bearing Case No. RC2172025A0005
came to be registered on 03.03.2025 by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi, arising out of the same
cause of action, against the said Prem Singh Bhanot as well as the
present Petitioners. The offences alleged therein are punishable
under Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), read with Section
120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) During the course of search operations conducted by the
investigating team of the CBI between 05.03.2025 and 07.03.2025,
several articles and documents were seized from the respective
Petitioners. The seizure included 19 documents, two mobile
phones, one laptop, and two bank locker keys from Petitioner
Nos. 1 and 2; five documents and one mobile phone from
Petitioner No. 3; and two mobile phones from the residence of
Petitioner No. 4.
Page 2

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(iv) During the pendency of the case, the Petitioners filed an
application before the learned Special Judge (CBI Court No. 1),
Bhubaneswar, being CMC No. 101 of 2025 under Sections 497
read with 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
seeking release of the seized electronic devices and locker keys
pending disposal of RC Case No. 05(A) of 2025.
(v) After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned
Trial Court, by order dated 09.01.2026, directed the Investigating
Officer to release the seized mobile phones, laptop, and locker
keys in favour of the respective Petitioners. Subsequently, vide
order dated 11.02.2026, the indemnity bonds furnished by the
Petitioners were duly accepted. Both the aforesaid orders were
passed in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the
CBI and were thereafter communicated to the Investigating
Officer for due compliance.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner
has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present
CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law.

II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER :
3.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Petitioners submit that despite receipt and due knowledge of
the orders dated 09.01.2026 and 11.02.2026 passed by the learned
Trial Court, no steps have been taken by the CBI authorities
towards compliance thereof. It is contended that the continued
Page 3

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
inaction and failure to respond to or implement the judicial
directions issued by a competent Court is wholly unjustified,
arbitrary, and devoid of reasonableness, and runs contrary to the
settled principles of justice, fair play, and the rule of law.

(ii) The Petitioners further submit that the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the CBI orally advised the Petitioners to travel to
New Delhi for obtaining release of the seized mobile phones on
the ground that the F.I.R. had been registered by the New Delhi
office and that the Investigating Officer was posted there.
However, the Petitioners contend that the entire cause of action,
investigation, seizure, and the consequential judicial proceedings
are admittedly continuing before the competent Court at
Bhubaneswar, and therefore, insisting upon the Petitioners to
approach New Delhi for compliance of the release orders is
wholly unreasonable and unsustainable in law.

(iii) It is submitted that the Petitioners are small businessmen and
labour contractors carrying on their activities from Bargarh and
have been unnecessarily implicated in the present case merely
because their phone numbers allegedly appeared in the contact
list of the principal accused, namely Prem Singh Bhanot. The
Petitioners contend that the seized mobile phones are
indispensable for their day-to-day business operations,
communication with clients and associates, and for earning their
livelihood, and that continued deprivation thereof has caused
serious prejudice and hardship to them.
Page 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(iv) It is the contention of the Petitioners that non-release of the seized
electronic devices has caused immense hardship in the conduct of
their business activities, thereby directly affecting their means of
livelihood and their ability to maintain and support their
respective families.
(v) It is further submitted that prolonged non-use of the seized
mobile phones and laptop, particularly when kept switched off
without periodic charging and maintenance, carries a substantial
risk of permanent damage to the devices, while the SIM cards
associated therewith may also become deactivated or blocked,
resulting in irreparable prejudice to the Petitioners.
(vi) The Petitioners further contend that the Investigating Agency has
already completed the substantial part of the investigation, and
the relevant data contained in the seized electronic devices has
been duly extracted, copied, recovered, and preserved for the
purpose of investigation and trial.

(vii) It is, therefore, submitted that no useful purpose would now be
served by continued retention of the seized articles by the
Investigating Agency. The Petitioners further assert that they
have already furnished the requisite surety and indemnity bonds
pursuant to the directions of the learned Trial Court, thereby
satisfying all conditions imposed for release of the said articles.

(viii) The Petitioner further submits that they have already submitted a
detailed representation before the Head of Branch (DIG), CBI,
Unit-8, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, specifically highlighting their
Page 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
financial hardship and practical difficulties. It is contended that
the Petitioners are permanent residents of Bargarh, situated at a
considerable distance from Bhubaneswar, and that two amongst
them are senior citizens who are neither physically nor financially
in a position to undertake travel to New Delhi merely for the
purpose of obtaining release of the seized articles. The
Petitioners, therefore, assert that the insistence upon their
presence at New Delhi is arbitrary, oppressive, and causes undue
hardship.

(ix) The Petitioners further submit that they have requested the Head
of Branch (DIG), CBI, Bhubaneswar, to make necessary and
expeditious arrangements for bringing back the seized electronic
articles from the custody of the Investigating Officer at New
Delhi to the Bhubaneswar office, so as to facilitate due
compliance with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court. It
is contended that unless appropriate directions are issued by this
Hon’ble Court to the concerned CBI authorities for handing over
the seized articles at the Bhubaneswar office, the Petitioners shall
suffer serious prejudice, hardship, and irreparable loss.

III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTIES :
4.
Per contra , the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made
the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this
Court and deserves to be rejected in limine.
Page 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
(i) The Opposite Party submits that the investigation in the instant
case is still at a nascent and crucial stage, and that detailed
scrutiny and examination of the seized mobile phones, laptop,
and incriminating documents belonging to the accused persons
are essentially required for the purpose of unearthing the alleged
deep-rooted criminal conspiracy. It is contended that the seized
electronic devices may contain vital digital evidence relevant to
the investigation, and therefore, the learned Special Judge has
erroneously directed release of the seized articles in favour of the
Petitioners vide order dated 11.02.2026.

(ii) The Opposite Party further contends that scrutiny of the
WhatsApp chats, bank account statements, and other materials
collected during investigation has revealed that illegal money
belonging to the prime accused, namely Banoth Prem Singh,
amounting to approximately Rs.347.04 lakhs, had allegedly been
parked with Petitioner No. 1, namely G. Satyanarayan, from time
to time. It is submitted that the said transactions are further
corroborated by certain handwritten notes and records allegedly
shared and maintained by the said Petitioner.

(iii) The Opposite Party further contends that, out of the aforesaid
amount, a sum of Rs.247.30 lakhs was allegedly transferred to
different bank accounts and disbursed to various persons for
diverse purposes at the instance of the prime accused. It is
submitted that the WhatsApp chats and other digital
communications disclose specific instructions purportedly issued
Page 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
by Banoth Prem Singh to Petitioner No. 1, namely G.
Satyanarayan, pursuant to which amounts of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.5
lakhs + Rs.5 lakhs were allegedly transferred from the bank
account of M/s Shri Venkateswara Seeds on 10.05.2024,
09.05.2024, and 14.05.2024 respectively. It is further alleged that
an amount of Rs.25 lakhs transferred by the said firm to M/s SP
Traders & Suppliers was also made on the instructions of Banoth
Prem Singh and constituted part of his alleged benami income.

(iv) The Opposite Party further contends that Petitioner No. 1 was
actively managing and handling the alleged ill-gotten money of
Banoth Prem Singh. It is submitted that M/s Shri Venkateswara
Seeds is a partnership firm substantially controlled and managed
by Petitioner No. 1, wherein his son, namely Uma Maheswar, and
his brother-in-law, namely M. Mohan Rao, are shown as partners.
It is further alleged that Petitioner No. 1 was also dealing with
matters relating to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) through
another entity, namely M/s Vardhan Associates, which stands in
the name of his son.
(v) The Opposite Party contends that the financial transactions
between Petitioner No. 1 and Banoth Prem Singh are prima facie
indicative of undue advantages obtained by the said public
servant through abuse of his official position. Particular emphasis
has been laid on an alleged direct transfer of Rs.50,000/- from the
bank account of M/s Shri Venkateswara Seeds to the bank
Page 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
account of Banoth Prem Singh, which, according to the
prosecution, prima facie points towards a direct bribe transaction.

(vi) The Opposite Party has placed reliance on decision of this court
1
in the case of CBI Vs. Saroj Kumar Das, wherein, vide order
dated 13.02.2026, this Court had set aside a similar order passed
by the learned Special Judge directing release of seized articles on
zimanama. It is submitted that this Court, in the said decision,
categorically held that seized mobile phones, laptops, gold
articles, and documents shall remain in the custody of the
Investigating Agency or the learned Trial Court, as the case may
be, in properly sealed condition and subject to further orders in
accordance with law.
(vii) The Opposite Party further contends that the CBI has already
preferred an appeal before the High Court of Odisha on
06.04.2026 challenging the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the
learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Bhubaneswar, whereby
direction has been issued for release of the seized articles in
favour of the Petitioners.
(viii) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Opposite
Party contends that the averments and allegations made by the
Petitioners are misconceived, misleading, and devoid of any
substantive merit. It is, therefore, prayed that the present
application, being untenable in law and facts, deserves to be
dismissed in the interest of justice.

1

CRLMC No. 3140 of 2025
Page 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
IV. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS :
5.
Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed

before this Court.
6.
At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in exercise
of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is well settled.
7. It is further a well-settled principle of law that while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the High Court ought not to embark upon a meticulous
enquiry into the reliability, admissibility, or sufficiency of the evidence
collected during investigation.
8. The scope of interference at such stage is inherently limited and is
required to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in
exceptional circumstances where continuation of the criminal
proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or where
no offence is disclosed on the face of the record.

9. In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, the delicate balance between the
powers of search and seizure vested in the investigating agencies and
the individual’s right to privacy and property constitutes a
foundational pillar of a fair, just, and constitutional society. The
criminal justice system, while empowering law enforcement authorities
to conduct effective investigation and collection of evidence,
simultaneously mandates adherence to the principles of due process,
fairness, and reasonableness so as to safeguard individuals from
arbitrary or excessive exercise of State power.
Page 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
10. At the core of this balance lies the constitutional obligation to ensure
that investigative powers are exercised strictly within the bounds of
law, while also preserving the efficacy and integrity of criminal
investigation in the larger interest of justice.

11. The CBI Manual, governing the procedure for investigation and
handling of electronic evidence, mandates generation and preservation
of hash values in respect of seized digital devices such as mobile
phones, laptops, and other electronic gadgets during the course of
investigation. The purpose of generating such hash values, in
consonance with the provisions and principles underlying the
Information Technology Act, is to ensure the authenticity, integrity,
and sanctity of the electronic evidence, and to safeguard the seized
devices and extracted data from any possibility of tampering,
alteration, or manipulation during the course of investigation and trial.
12.
In the present case, the Petitioners have approached this Court seeking
release of the seized articles, namely the mobile phones, laptops, and
locker keys, which were taken into custody during the course of
investigation by the Investigating Agency.
13. At this juncture, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment
2
rendered in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Saroj Kumar Das,
wherein it has been authoritatively held that seized property ought not
to be retained in official custody for a duration longer than what is
absolutely necessary for the purposes of investigation or trial.

2

2026 SCC Online Ori 610
Page 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
“14. The guiding principle is that seized property ought
not to be retained in official custody longer than is
absolutely necessary.
15. …….The default approach, therefore, is to release the
property on interim custody to its owner or the claimant,
once its immediate evidentiary use is secured, rather than
allowing it to remain in official custody indefinitely.
Prolonged deprivation of property causes hardship and
prejudice, and is to be avoided unless the retention of the
article is absolutely necessary for the purposes of justice.”

14.
It was observed therein that prolonged deprivation of property
causes undue hardship, serious prejudice, and unnecessary
suffering to the affected party, and therefore, continued retention of
seized articles cannot be justified unless such retention is shown to
be indispensable for the ends of justice and effective adjudication of
the case.

15. Applying the aforesaid settled principle to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the continued delay and prolonged retention of the
seized articles, in the absence of any compelling or legally
sustainable justification, is arbitrary in nature and runs contrary to
the principles of fairness, proportionality, and expeditious
administration of criminal justice.

16. Accordingly, upon a careful consideration of the materials available
on record and the submissions advanced by the respective parties,
this Court finds sufficient merit in the present Petition.
Consequently, the Petition stands allowed in the interest of justice.

Page 12

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
V. C ONCLUSION :
17.
In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon an anxious, careful, and
comprehensive consideration of the material facts, records, and
circumstances attendant to the present case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that having due regard to the nature of the seized
articles, the hardship and necessity pleaded by the Petitioners, and the
fact that the relevant data and materials are stated to have already been
preserved by the Investigating Agency, this Court deems it proper and
appropriate to direct release of the seized materials in favour of the
Petitioners, subject to stringent terms and conditions to ensure their
production as and when required during the course of investigation or
trial.
18. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed.
19.
Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.



(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
nd
Dated 22 May, 2026
Page 13