Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3140 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.) Central Bureau of Investigation …. Petitioner (s) -versus- Saroj Kumar Das …. Opp. Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Public Prosecutor -cum-Retainer Counsel, CBI. For Opp. Party (s) : Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-03.02.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.02.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition the Petitioner/CBI seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-01), Bhubaneswar releasing the seized articles on zimanama and to direct that the mobile phones, laptop, gold items and documents remain in official custody pending completion of further investigation. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The facts of the case are as follows: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 2 (i) The present CRLMC/482 petition (corresponding to S. 528 BNSS) challenges the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Spl. Judge, CBI-01, Bhubaneswar in Case No. 09/22 (RC 216 2022 A0009) directing release of seized articles on zimanama. (ii) The RC was registered on 03.08.2022 on source information alleging a bribery-conspiracy involving Saroj Kumar Das (CME, Paradip Port Authority) and others, under S. 120B IPC read with provisions of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended, 2018). (iii) A search at the residential premises of Saroj Kumar Das was conducted on 04.08.2022, and articles including three mobile phones, one laptop, gold items, and property documents/papers were seized as per search list. (iv) The CBI filed charge-sheet on 03.10.2022 against multiple accused (including the public servant and private individuals/company), and the case proceeded to cognizance. (v) The accused Saroj Kumar Das moved an application under S. 457 CrPC seeking interim release of the seized items; the Trial Court allowed release of the articles (including the mobile phones, laptop, jewellery, and documents) on execution of zimanama and undertaking to produce them when required. II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) The impugned order is assailed as arbitrary/illegal, principally because it proceeds on the premise that “investigation is Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 3 completed” and that “question of further investigation does not arise.” (ii) The petitioner asserts this premise is factually incorrect, as the charge-sheet itself records that further investigation is kept open (including voice samples, forensic examination, digital data extraction, source of bribe amount, and roles of other suspects), and a supplementary report under S. 173(8) CrPC is contemplated. (iii) It is argued that release of seized articles will prejudice further investigation and trial, especially where items are claimed to be digital evidence and/or are under scrutiny for proceeds of crime/asset trail. (iv) The petitioner specifically challenges release of one mobile phone (MR No. 2063/2022) on the ground that it is a relied-upon article forming part of the charge-sheet material, and its release may compromise evidentiary integrity. (v) The petitioner also objects to release of gold items (MR No. 2065/2022) and property documents (MR No. 2072/2022) stating valuation/scrutiny is pending and such material is relevant to the alleged corruption/asset acquisition angle. (vi) A further contention is that the Trial Court wrongly exercised power under S. 457 CrPC for an article already relied upon/produced with the charge-sheet, and that keeping the seized articles in CBI malkhana in sealed condition avoids deterioration and preserves chain of custody. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 4 (vii) The petitioner emphasizes pendency of proceedings connected to voice samples (including a stated pending petition before the High Court) to show that further investigative steps are live and dependent on electronic material. III. ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER COURT: 4. The Analysis of the Order of the Lower Court is as follows: (i) The Trial Court records that the case was registered, a search was conducted, and items were seized from the accused’s residence, including mobiles, laptop, documents, and gold items. (ii) The Trial Court notes the accused’s stand that, barring a specific sale deed and one phone listed in charge-sheet articles, the other seized items were not relied upon in the charge-sheet and have remained seized for a considerable duration after filing of charge- sheet. (iii) The Trial Court records the prosecution’s objection that the items include digital evidence and asset-related material required for further investigation, including pending steps like voice samples, and that release would be detrimental. (iv) The Trial Court treats filing of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance as decisive indicators that investigation is complete, and explicitly reasons that once the charge-sheet is filed, further investigation does not arise. (v) On that reasoning, the Trial Court finds the accused’s request fit to be allowed and directs release of the seized items on zimanama with an undertaking to produce them as and when Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 5 required, and directs the I.O. to place the zimanama/undertaking on record. IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX: 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC assails the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar in Case No. 09/22. By the impugned order, the Special Judge directed release of various articles seized from the residence of accused Saroj Kumar Das, including three mobile phones, a laptop, gold ornaments and certain property documents, to the accused on executing a zimanama. 7. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as petitioner, contends that this order was passed on an erroneous premise that the investigation had concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet, whereas in fact the charge-sheet explicitly kept the investigation open under Section 173(8) CrPC for specific pending steps such as forensic examination of digital devices, voice sample analysis, tracing the source of bribe money and roles of other suspects. It is urged that releasing the seized items at this stage would seriously prejudice the ongoing further investigation as well as the eventual trial, particularly since one of the seized mobile phones (MR No. 2063/2022) is part of the charge-sheeted evidence, containing material conversations, and the gold jewellery and property documents are under scrutiny to establish the proceeds of crime/assets acquired through the alleged corruption. The CBI submits that the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 6 integrity of this evidence and the chain of custody would be compromised by handing over custody to the accused, and that the trial court misdirected itself in law by assuming that no further investigation could now take place. 8. At the outset, this Court finds merit in the petitioner’s submission that the trial court’s view, viz., that once a charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance taken, “investigation is completed” and no question of further investigation arises, is patently contrary to law. 9. It is well-settled that the police’s power to conduct further investigation after the filing of a charge-sheet is preserved by Section 173(8) CrPC. Even after a court has taken cognizance of an offence on a police report, further investigation into the facts is permissible and indeed may be necessary in the interests of justice. The Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.),1 observed that further investigation is not barred merely because the Magistrate has taken cognizance on an earlier report, if fresh evidence or aspects indicating incomplete investigation come to light, the police can and should investigate further to arrive at the truth. The Court held as follows: “As observed by us earlier, there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which, expressly or by necessary implication, barred the right of the police to further investigate after cognizance of the case had been taken by the Magistrate. Neither Section 173 nor Section 190 lead us to hold that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Practice, convenience and 1 (1979) 2 SCC 322 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 7 preponderance of authority, permitted repeated investigations on discovery of fresh facts. In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light. Where the police desi ed to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation.” 10. The Court emphasized that an effective trial of the real offences uncovered by a proper investigation is as important and necessary as an expeditious trial, and therefore any potential delay caused by further investigation should not deter the effort to unearth the truth so long as it is warranted in the interests of justice. 11. Likewise, in State of A.P. v. A.S. Peter2, the Supreme Court reiterated that carrying out further investigation even after filing of the charge- sheet is a statutory right of the police, and no prior permission of the court is required for it, as distinguished from a “reinvestigation” or fresh investigation, which is not permissible without court order. The Court held as under: “9. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further investigation even after filing of the chargesheet is a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and re- investigation. Whereas re-investigation without prior 2 (2008) 2 SCC 383 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 8 permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.” 12. In short, the mere fact that a final report under Section 173(2) has been submitted does not exhaust the investigating agency’s ability to probe further into the offence, a fortiori, the court below was in error in proceeding on the assumption that investigation had irreversibly concluded at the filing of the charge-sheet. 13. That said, the existence of the power to conduct further investigation does not automatically mandate that all seized property must continue to remain in police custody till the trial concludes. The law vests discretion in the courts, under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, to regulate the custody of seized articles during the pendency of trial or inquiry. 14. The guiding principle is that seized property ought not to be retained in official custody longer than is absolutely necessary. As far back as 1977, in Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore3, the Court held that once the necessity to retain the property ceases, it should be restored to its owner and not kept indefinitely in court or police custody. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original 3(1977) 4 SCC 358 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 9 owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice.” 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. 16. In the facts of the present case, this Court must apply this principle. The issue is whether the learned Special Judge exercised sound discretion in directing release of the seized articles. The devices and documents were seized on 04.08.2022 and have remained in custody for over two years. The accused contended that, except for one mobile phone and a specific sale deed referred to in the charge-sheet, the remaining items have not been relied upon by the prosecution. If certain articles are not required for evidentiary purposes, their continued retention may not advance the prosecution case and may cause unnecessary hardship to the accused. The principle recognizes that property not required for trial should ordinarily not be kept in custody for an unduly long period. Electronic devices depreciate in utility and may contain personal or professional data. Jewellery and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 10 original title documents may also be required for legitimate family or financial purposes. Such considerations generally support interim release of property, subject to adequate safeguards to ensure its production during trial. 17. The Special Judge’s failure to advert to these concerns has resulted in a premature order. The impugned order proceeds on the simplistic assumption that because a charge-sheet was filed and cognizance taken, the investigation was over and no further probe was possible, an assumption which, as discussed, is legally flawed. Consequently, the trial court did not appropriately weigh the prejudice to the investigation that could result from releasing the articles at this stage. The order does record the prosecution’s objection that the devices and documents were required for further investigation, such as voice sampling and asset tracking, yet the court reasoned that since the “investigation is completed”, such objections carry no weight. 18. This essentially closed its eyes to the invocation of Section 173(8) in the charge-sheet and to the well-established principle that further investigation can continue in parallel with the trial proceedings. In the process, the trial court misapplied its discretion under Section 457 CrPC. Had the court correctly appreciated that further investigation was legitimately pending, it would have been incumbent upon it to calibrate the interim custody order in a manner that does not frustrate the ongoing investigation. For instance, the court could have decided to release only those articles that were not actively required or were easily substitutable by copies, while refusing or deferring release of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 11 items like the crucial mobile phone until completion of forensic analysis. However, by blanketly ordering release of all the seized articles, barring none, on a mistaken notion that the case had entered a static phase, the Special Judge adopted an approach that was manifestly unreasonable and against the interests of justice in the present circumstances. V. CONCLUSION: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 30.11.2024 cannot be sustained. The petition is accordingly allowed. The order directing release of the seized articles on zimanama is set aside and the application under Section 457 CrPC for interim release stands rejected at this stage. The seized mobile phones, laptop, gold items and documents shall remain in the custody of the investigating agency or the Trial Court, as the case may be, in properly sealed condition, subject to law. 20. The Investigating Agency shall expeditiously complete the remaining investigation for which the seized articles are required. If, after completion of necessary steps such as forensic examination or valuation, no further justification survives for retaining any particular article, it shall be open to the accused to renew the prayer before the Trial Court. In such event, the Trial Court shall consider the application afresh on its own merits, bearing in mind that seized property should not be retained longer than necessary once its evidentiary purpose has been served. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Feb-2026 18:44:55 Signature Not Verified Page 12 21. With the above observations and directions, the CRLMC petition is allowed, and the impugned order of the Special Judge, CBI dated 30.11.2024 is quashed. 22. The interim order staying the proceedings, if any, is vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th February, 2026/-