Orissa High Court
Sruti Sagar Kar vs Central Bureau Of .... Opposite Party on 24 November, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.4114 of 2025
Sruti Sagar Kar .... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Central Bureau of .... Opposite Party
Investigation
Mr. S. Nayak, Retainer Counsel
ABLAPL No.9603 of 2025
Sambit Mishra .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
Republic of India .... Opposite Party
(CBI)
Mr. S. Nayak, Retainer Counsel
ABLAPL No.9616 of 2025
Sangram Mishra .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
Republic of India .... Opposite Party
(CBI)
Mr. S. Nayak, Retainer Counsel
Page 1 of 8
ABLAPL No.9994 of 2025
Rajashree Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Republic of India .... Opposite Party
(CBI)
Mr. S. Nayak, Retainer Counsel
ABLAPL No.10089 of 2025
Sai Sagar Kar .... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Republic of India .... Opposite Party
(CBI)
Mr. S. Nayak, Retainer Counsel
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
24.11.2025 Order No.
05. 1. Since all these ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, on the consent of the parties, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Additional affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.9994 of 2025 in Court is taken on record. A copy thereof has been served on learned counsel for the CBI, Mr. Nayak and Mr. Page 2 of 8 Nayak submits that he will address this Court taking into account the recitals made in the said additional affidavit.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Retainer Counsel for the CBI.
4. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with DSPE, CBI, ACB P.S Case No.RC0152025A0008 dated 06.08.2025 corresponding to RC 08(A)/2025-BBS pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
4-A. Complaint was received regarding Group-B and C recruitees pursuant to the advertisement by the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. It was, inter alia, alleged that employment was obtained by submitting forged educational certificate as well as experience certificate. To test the veracity of such allegation, preliminary inquiry was conducted and since during inquiry prima facie materials regarding complicity of the present Petitioners along with one Sudhir Kumar Pradhan, Assistant Administrative Officer, I/c, Recruitment Cell, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar came to light the FIR in question was instituted.
5. At the outset, it is worthwhile to mention here that the allegation against the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9603 of 2025, 9616 of 2025, 9994 of 2025 and Page 3 of 8 10089 of 2025 is of getting employment in Group-B and Group-C posts on production of fake academic as well as experience certificate and it is alleged that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.4114 of 2025 who had worked in Bhubaneswar in the office of the Service Provider at BIS (India) Ltd. has procured the fake certificates to enable the other Petitioners to get employment in AIIMS, Bhubaneswar.
The Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9994 and 10089 of 2025 are the wife and brother respectively of the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.4114 of 2025 Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9603 and 9616 of 2025 are distantly related to the said Sruti Sagar Kar (Petitioner in ABLAPL No.4114 of 2025).
6. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the Petitioners that the entire allegations are based on documentary evidence. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9603 of 2025, 9616 of 2025, 9994 of 2025 and 10089 of 2025 are working in AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and they are facing departmental proceedings. Hence, custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not warranted.
7. It is brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing in ABLAPL No.9994 of 2025 that the Petitioner-Rajashree Panda is pregnant (12 weeks) and her medical condition requires special medical care. As such that ought to weigh with this Court in considering her pre-arrest bail application.
Page 4 of 87-A. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI, Mr. Nayak submits that the Petitioner (Rajashree Panda) in ABLAPL No.9994 of 2025 referring to the objection filed submits that she is attending her duties regularly. Hence, the health ground should not be taken into account while considering the bail application of the said Petitioner.
8. Learned retainer counsel appearing for the CBI, Mr. Nayak, referring to the case diary, regarding educational certificates of the Petitioners submits that on physical verification by the I.O, it is found that there is no institute i.e. Shree College of Paramedical Sciences, Ghaziabad and Allied Health Care Council of India to which the college is stated to be affiliated at the given location in Ghaziabad.
So according to the learned counsel for the CBI, the institute just exists on paper and reference in this context is made to the statement of the house owner indicating that the entire space as referred to in the address of the institute as mentioned in Google consists of an office space of 186 sq. feet. 8-A. So far as experience certificate is concerned, referring to the case diary, learned retainer counsel further submits that the very author, of the experience certificates heavily relied upon by all the Petitioners, in ABLAPL Nos.9603 of 2025, 9616 of 2025, 9994 of 2025 and 10089 of 2025 has stated Page 5 of 8 that the said Petitioners never worked in BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur engaged through Bombay Integrated Security (India) Ltd. As such they are fabricated.
9. This Court perused the case diary as submitted by the learned counsel for the CBI. On verification of the same, it is seen that the I.O physically visited the institute in question and found the assertion regarding location of the institution in question to be wrong and the authenticity of the experience certificates are found to be incorrect on which much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9603 of 2025, 9616 of 2025, 9994 of 2025 and 10089 of 2025.
10. So far as the complicity of the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.4114 of 2025 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he is not an employee of AIIMS, Bubaneswar and is being implicated only because the Petitioner in 9994 of 2025 is his wife and the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.10089 of 2025 is his brother and other Petitioners in ABLAPL Nos.9603 of 2025 and 9616 of 2025 are distantly related to him. Hence, he may be protected by pre-arrest bail.
11. Learned counsel for the CBI submits that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.4114 of 2025 is the kingpin Page 6 of 8 and referring to the case diary and the statements on record, it is submitted that he was working as a Manager (Operations and Marketing) in Bombay Integrated Security (India) Ltd. and taking advantage of such employment enabled other Petitioners including his wife in obtaining fake experience certificates and educational certificates in question.
12. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record and taking into account the nature of allegation, this Court is persuaded to hold that the Petitioners are not entitled to the exceptional remedy of pre-arrest bail. ABLAPLs accordingly stand rejected.
However, it shall be open for the Petitioners to surrender and move an application for bail which shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the rejection of their ABLAPLs.
13. It is needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of consideration of the Petitioners' prayer for pre-arrest bail and the same ought not to be considered as this Court expressing any opinion regarding complicity of the Petitioners which has to be probed independently.
14. Before parting with the matter, in the light of the medical condition of the Petitioner (Rajashree Panda) in ABLAPL No.9994 of 2025, this Court has no iota of doubt that the investigating agency will act Page 7 of 8 with empathy and sensitivity which is expected from a premier investigating agency of this country, while dealing with the said Petitioner.
15. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
16. The ABLAPLs are accordingly disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH) Judge PKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2025 10:36:06 Page 8 of 8