Jharkhand High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation … vs Anil Dixit on 18 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2026:JHHC:4799]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 4322 of 2022
Central Bureau of Investigation through Awdhesh
Kumar Suman, son of Shri Ram Vinay Thakur,
aged about 37 years, hold and presently posted as
Inspector of Police / HIO, CBI, ACB, Ranchi,
Jharkhand, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur,
District-Ranchi.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
Anil Dixit, son of Shri V.N. Dikshit, resident of
C/173, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-76, P.O. and P.S.-
Sarita Vihar, District South East Delhi, New
Delhi-76.
..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
: Mr. Ayush, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
For the Sole O.P. : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate.
------
05/ 18.02.2026 Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for
the petitioner-CBI and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing
for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
18.07.2022, passed in R.C. 12(A)/2014-R by the learned AJC-XVIII-
cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, whereby the petition filed by the
opposite party under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction for
supply of documents have been allowed.
3. The FIR was registered on 31.10.2014 against the different
accused persons alleging therein that during the period 2010 to 2014 the
accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other and awarded
the consultancy work for preparation of master plan and comprehensive
architectural building, designing and engineering design for the
permanent campus of Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi on the
-1-
[2026:JHHC:4799]
basis of fake documents and making fraudulent payments to the said
firms thereby causing a wrongful loss of Rs. 1,92,08,774/-.
4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the
petitioner-CBI submits that after completion of investigation, the
chargesheet was submitted under Sections 120B read with Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He next submits that the
petitioner herein has filed a petition for supply of certain documents,
which was allowed by the learned court by order dated 21.09.2019. He
then submits that thereafter the petitioner-CBI has filed the compliance
affidavit of that order disclosing the reasons that how certain documents
have not been supplied to the opposite party. He further submits that
thereafter further petition was filed by the sole opposite party on
27.05.2022, whereby, the learned court by the impugned order dated
18.07.2022 has been pleased to pass the order to supply the documents,
sought to be desired by the sole opposite party. He also submits that the
learned court has erred in passing the said order, as the said documents
are not available with the CBI or some of the documents are
confidential in nature. He further submits that even the prosecution
witnesses have not been started to be examined as yet and when the
opposite party will reach the stage of his defence, he is having the right
to invoke Section 91 read with Section 242 of the Cr.P.C., as the case is
arising before the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
5. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI relied in
the case of Sarla Gupta & Anr. Versus Directorate of Enforcement,
reported in (2025) 7 SCC 626 and by way of referring Paras-68.3 to
68.8, he submits that at the stage of defence of the opposite party only,
the required documents can be procured.
-2-
[2026:JHHC:4799]
6. He also submits that the second judgment in the case of
Manoj & Ors. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2
SCC 353 and in light of para-205 of the said judgment, the said stage
has not come as yet.
7. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI on the
above grounds submits that the impugned order of the learned court
may kindly be set aside.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel
appearing for the sole opposite party has opposed the prayer and
submits that the learned court has not committed any error, as in spite
of several orders, passed by the learned court, the CBI has not complied
the said order and thereafter the said order has been passed, whereby
the CBI was directed to supply the documents in question, which was
not challenged by the CBI and subsequently, when the documents have
not been supplied, further petition has been filed by the sole opposite
party and the learned court has further directed the CBI to supply the
desired documents. He next submits that in view of that the CBI is
required to supply the said documents.
9. learned counsel has relied in the case of Sarla Gupta &
Anr. Versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2025) 7 SCC
626 and he refers to paras-68.3 and 68.8, which are as under:-
“68.3. We hold that a copy of the list of
statements, documents, material objects and
exhibits that are not relied upon by the
investigating officer must also be furnished to
the accused. As held by this Court, the object
is to ensure that the accused has knowledge of
the documents, objects, etc. in the custody of
the investigating officer which are not relied
upon so that at the appropriate stage, the
accused can apply by invoking the provisions
of Section 91CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) for-3-
[2026:JHHC:4799]providing copies of the documents which are
not relied upon by the prosecution.
68.8. At the time of hearing of an application
for bail governed by Section 45(1)(ii) in
connection with the offences under Section 3
of the PMLA, an accused is entitled to invoke
Section 91CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) seeking
production of unrelied upon documents. If
investigation or further investigation in
progress, the ED is entitled to raise objection
to production of documents sought by the
accused on the ground that if the documents
are disclosed at this stage to the accused, it
may prejudice the investigation. Only if the
court after perusing the documents is satisfied
that the disclosure of the documents at that
stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation,
it can deny the prayer for the production of
such documents.”
10. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the CBI is
bound to supply the desired documents to the accused for the fair trial.
11. Learned counsel has further relied in the case of Manoj &
Ors. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353
and he refers to Paras-205 and 209 of the said judgment, which are as
under:-
“205. In the present case, the trial court ought
to have inquired more deeply into the role of
DW 1, given that by her own deposition she
had admitted to analysing call detail records
and involvement in Neha’s arrest — all of
which had been suppressed by the prosecution
side, for reasons best known to them. In this
context, a reading of Sections 91 and
243CrPC as done in Manu Sharma [Manu
Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC
1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] , is important to
refer to : (Manu Sharma case [Manu
Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC
1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] , SCC p. 85,-4-
[2026:JHHC:4799]para 217)
“217. … Section 91 empowers the court to
summon production of any document or thing
which the court considers necessary or
desirable for the purposes of any
investigation, inquiry, trial or another
proceeding under the provisions of the Code.
Where Section 91 read with Section 243 says
that if the accused is called upon to enter his
defence and produce his evidence there he has
also been given the right to apply to the court
for issuance of process for compelling the
attendance of any witness for the purpose of
examination, cross-examination or the
production of any document or other thing for
which the court has to pass a reasoned order.”
209. In view of the above discussion, this
Court holds that the prosecution, in the
interests of fairness, should as a matter of
rule, in all criminal trials, comply with the
above rule, and furnish the list of statements,
documents, material objects and exhibits
which are not relied upon by the investigating
officer. The presiding officers of courts in
criminal trials shall ensure compliance with
such rules.”
12. Relying on the above two judgments, he submits that the
prosecution in the interests of fairness is required to supply the
documents and as such, the learned court has rightly passed the said
order.
13. In view of the above submissions of respective parties, it
appears that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has filed a
petition on 27.05.2019, which was allowed by the learned court on
21.09.2019 and the said order has not been challenged before any
higher court, as such, the said order has attained the finality and after
giving several opportunity to the CBI, the compliance report has been
filed, saying that available documents has already been supplied and
-5-
[2026:JHHC:4799]
certain documents have not been supplied. The other petition has also
been filed by the sole opposite party before the learned court and on
that petition the impugned order has been passed on 18.07.2022.
14. The CBI has taken the following grounds of not supplying
the documents and that has been stated in para-10 of the present
petition, which is as under:-
(a) Photocopies of all seizure memos, through
which documents have been seized by the IO during
investigation of from various departments/
authorities. Photocopies of all seizure memos this
case through which documents have been seized by
the 10 during investigation are supplied.
(b) Photocopies for Daily Dairy Register and
FIR Register maintained in the office of SP,
СВІ/НОВ, Ranchi, ACB, the for month October/
November 2014-Not supplied as are of these
confidential documents and neither
seized/collected/relied upon in the instant case.
(c) Photocopies of letter Dispatch Register of the
office of the SP CBI/HOB, ACB, Ranchi for the
month of October/November 2014. Not supplied as
these are confidential documents and neither seized
/collected/relied upon in the instant case.
(d) Photocopies of Source Information Report
(SIR) of case No. RC No. 12A/2014-R and its SIR
verification report both are public document and
mandatory part of FIR Itself.- Not supplied as these
are confidential documents and neither seized
/collected/relied upon in the instant case.
(e) Photocopies of all documents seized by the IO
but not relied upon in the charge sheet.- The un-
relied upon documents collected during the
investigation are voluminous the petitioner is
requested inspect these to documents seized in this
-6-
[2026:JHHC:4799]
case with the permission of this Hon’ble court.
(f) Photocopies of minutes of 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th,
13th, and 14th, Building Committee as frequent
Reference appearing in Upon Documents of these
meetings are the Charge Sheet and Relied at
number of places. This established the pick and
Choose theory of documents as blatantly followed
prosecution documents, in supports of by the
defense have been withheld by the prosecution with
malafide intensions. Documents related to 11th
meeting dated 27.01.12 are cited in the charge-
sheet which has already been supplied to the
accused Apart of any petitioner as relied upon
document. from this, no other reference Building
Committee meetings are concerned with this case.
Since the un-relied documents voluminous are
documents which can and un-relied be perused by
the petitioner by the permission of this Hon’ble
Court.
(g) Videography/Photography of evaluation
committee meeting for finalization of Master Plan
dated 16 and 17/12/2011 and another meeting held
on dated 21.01.2012 for finalization designs for
Individual Buildings. The videography /
photography of evaluation committee meetings for
Finalization of Master Plan, was not collected
during the investigation in this case and, hence, the
same could not be supplied. As such no recording is
available with CBI in this case.
(h) Photocopies of minutes of the meeting held on
21.01.2012 for Finalization of Individual Buildings
attendance designs, with sheet.- the signed This
document is not available with СВІ.
(i) Photocopies of expression of Interest and the
Technical bid as submitted by the applicant, while
-7-
[2026:JHHC:4799]
applying for the process of selection in response of
Expression of interest.- Relied upon document was
marked D-2 which contains EOI, has already been
supplied to the petitioner. Technical bid as
submitted by the applicant, while applying for the
process of selection in response to Expression of
Interest, is not available in the file collected from
CUJ by CBI.
(j) Appointment files of M/s Grey Parikh
Architects Pvt. Ltd. and MS Sandeep Shirke
Architects & Associates Pvt. Ltd. the two accused
with were named in FIR but dropped in
Chargsheet.- Part of the unrelied upon and
requested the petitioner for examination/ perusal
with the approval of the court.
15. The nature of the documents, which are said to be sought by
the sole opposite party appears to be the public documents and the CBI
has taken the ground of not supplying the documents, which prima
facie appears that the CBI unnecessarily taken that ground.
16. In the case of Manoj & Ors. Versus State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
para-209 of the said judgment has categorically held that the
prosecution in the interests of fairness, should be as a matter of rule, in
all criminal trials, comply with the above rule and that has been
discussed from paras-205 onwards.
17. In the case of Sarla Gupta’s Case (Supra), it has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-68.3 of the said judgment that
the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are
not relied upon by the Investigating officer must be supplied to the
accused.
18. In light of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., the summons to
produce, a document or other thing can be issued where the court finds
-8-
[2026:JHHC:4799]
that the production of the document or thing “is necessary or desirable
for the purpose of any investigation, trial or other proceeding” under the
Cr.P.C and in the case in hand, the court has rightly exercised that
aspect of the matter.
19. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court is
not inclined to set aside the impugned order, as there is no illegality in
the impugned order. As such, this petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-18.02.2026
Amitesh/- [A.F.R.]
-9-