Odisha Vigilance arrests police ASI, Home Guard in Bhubaneswar bribe trap
Synopsis
A police ASI who was the very Investigating Officer in a complainant's case allegedly extracted ₹80,000 in two instalments — then demanded ₹20,000 more for the return of two mobile phones. When Odisha Vigilance sprung a trap, his Home Guard accomplice threw the cash into bushes and ran. Both were caught. The ASI has since been sacked under a constitutional provision that skips the inquiry stage entirely.
Key Takeaways
Odisha Vigilance arrested ASI Rajesh Kullu and Home Guard Jyoti Ranjan Behera of Mancheswar Police Station, Bhubaneswar on 18 June 2026 .
Kullu allegedly collected ₹80,000 in two earlier instalments and demanded an additional ₹20,000 for the return of the complainant's two mobile phones.
The entire ₹20,000 bribe amount was recovered after Behera attempted to discard it in nearby bushes during the trap operation.
A case has been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act ; investigation is ongoing.
ASI Kullu was dismissed with immediate effect under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution; Home Guards Behera and Abdul Sarfaraj Khan were served one-month termination notices .
The Odisha Vigilance on 18 June 2026 arrested an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of Police and a Home Guard driver from Mancheswar Police Station in Bhubaneswar for allegedly extorting a total of ₹1 lakh from a complainant in exchange for assistance in a case and the return of two seized mobile phones. Both accused were caught red-handed following a Vigilance trap operation, officials confirmed.
Who Was Arrested
The two arrested individuals were identified as Rajesh Kullu, ASI and Investigating Officer at Mancheswar Police Station, and Jyoti Ranjan Behera, a Home Guard driver attached to the same station. A third Home Guard, Abdul Sarfaraj Khan, was not arrested but has been served a termination notice for alleged involvement.
How the Bribe Scheme Unfolded
According to Vigilance officials, ASI Kullu had already collected ₹80,000 from the complainant in two instalments — allegedly to facilitate the case in the complainant's favour. On 17 June 2026, when the complainant returned seeking the release of his two mobile phones, Kullu allegedly demanded an additional ₹20,000 and directed the complainant to hand the money over to Home Guard driver Behera instead.
Acting on the complaint, a Vigilance team laid a trap on Wednesday, 18 June 2026. Behera allegedly collected the ₹20,000 as instructed. When Vigilance personnel moved in, Behera reportedly threw the cash into nearby bushes and attempted to flee alongside Kullu. Both were apprehended after a chase, and the entire ₹20,000 was recovered and seized.
Action Taken Against the Accused
A case has been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and further investigation is underway, officials said. In a swift administrative response, ASI Kullu was removed from service with immediate effect under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India — a provision invoked in cases where it is not reasonably practicable to hold a formal inquiry. Home Guards Behera and Abdul Sarfaraj Khan have each been served a one-month notice for termination from the Home Guards organisation.
Broader Context
This is not an isolated incident for the Odisha Vigilance, which has in recent months intensified trap operations against public servants across the state. The use of Article 311(2)(b) — bypassing the standard departmental inquiry route — signals the administration's intent to act decisively when caught-in-the-act evidence is available. Notably, the total bribe allegedly demanded across instalments stood at ₹1 lakh, a significant sum for a case involving the return of personal property. The incident raises questions about oversight mechanisms within police stations where investigating officers hold unchecked discretion over seized items.
Point of View
Where the person controlling evidence and case progress is also the one extracting payment, is a systemic vulnerability that a trap operation addresses only symptomatically. Odisha Vigilance's use of Article 311(2)(b) to bypass departmental inquiry is legally valid when evidence is unambiguous, but it also sidesteps the institutional question: how did a pattern of two-instalment collections go undetected within the station hierarchy? The termination notices to two Home Guards — rather than immediate suspension pending inquiry — suggest the administration is still calibrating accountability below the officer level.
NationPress
7 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was arrested by Odisha Vigilance in the Bhubaneswar bribe case?
Odisha Vigilance arrested ASI Rajesh Kullu and Home Guard driver Jyoti Ranjan Behera of Mancheswar Police Station, Bhubaneswar, on 18 June 2026. Both were caught during a trap operation after Behera allegedly collected a ₹20,000 bribe on Kullu's instructions.
How much bribe was allegedly demanded in total?
The total alleged bribe amounted to ₹1 lakh — ₹80,000 collected by ASI Kullu in two earlier instalments, and an additional ₹20,000 demanded on 17 June 2026 for the return of the complainant's two mobile phones.
What legal action has been taken against the accused?
A case has been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and investigation is underway. ASI Kullu has been dismissed from service with immediate effect under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, while Home Guards Behera and Abdul Sarfaraj Khan have been served one-month termination notices.
What is Article 311(2)(b) under which ASI Kullu was dismissed?
Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India allows the government to dismiss a public servant without holding a formal departmental inquiry when it is not reasonably practicable to do so — typically invoked when caught-in-the-act evidence is clear and unambiguous.
Was any bribe money recovered?
Yes, the Vigilance team recovered and seized the entire ₹20,000 that had been collected during the trap operation, even after Behera allegedly threw the cash into nearby bushes while attempting to flee.
