Orissa High Court
Mustaq Allam @ Mushtaque vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 22 August, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.5761, 11344 & 12737 of 2024
(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Mustaq Allam @ Mushtaque ... Petitioners
Alam
(In BLAPL No.5761 of 2024)
Aamir Khan
(In BLAPL No.11344 of 2024)
Arman Qureshi
(In BLAPL No.12737 of 2024)
Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.5761 of 2024)
Mr. D. Panda, Advocate
(in BLAPL Nos.11344 & 12737 of 2024)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING &JUDGMENT:22.08.2025
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these three bail applications arise out
of one and same case record, the same are taken up
together and disposed of by this common order with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. These are applications U/S.483 BNSS by
the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with
Plantsite PS Case No.335 of 2021 arising out of ST
No.64/16 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned 2nd
Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela for commission of
offences punishable U/Ss.147/ 148/ 307/ 341/ 323/
326/ 506/ 302/ 120-B/ 149 of IPC r/w Sec.25/27 of
Arms Act, on the allegation of firing at the informant
and his brother and assaulting the brother of the
informant by sharp cutting weapons along with co-
accused persons causing death to the brother of the
informant.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis
Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL
Nos.11344 & 12737 of 2024 submits that although the
petitioners are identified in TI parade by PW16, but
PW16 having admitted in cross-examination about
seeing the photo of the petitioners prior to the TI
parade, no sanctity can be attached to such TI parade
report and eye witnesses like PWs.13 and 15 having
not supported the prosecution case and the petitioner
Aamir Khan being the informant in the case of murder
of his brother in which the deceased was an accused
along with PW14, the evidence of PW14 cannot be
believed to detain the petitioners further in custody in
this case. It is also submitted by Mr.Panda that the
petitioner Aamir Khan was released on interim bail for
some period, but he has never misused the concession
so granted to him and he being still continuing with the
ailment may kindly be granted bail. It is also submitted
by Mr. Panda that the petitioner Aamir Khan was in fact
taken into hospital today for his ailment of varicose
veins and there is no material or evidence against the
petitioners, but they are in confinement and, therefore,
the petitioners may kindly be granted bail.
3.1. Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, learned counsel for
the petitioner in BLAPL No.5761 of 2024 in echoing the
submission as advanced by Mr. Panda prays to grant
bail to the petitioners.
3.2. In reply, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor by producing relevant documents
submits that the petitioner-Aamir Khan although claims
to have not misused the liberty so granted to him in the
form of interim bail, but he had mislead the Court in
obtaining extension of his interim bail. It is further
submitted by Mr. Satpathy that appreciation of
evidence at the stage of bail should be avoided, but it
cannot be ruled out that the petitioners have been
identified in TI parade, so also by the eye witnesses
who have implicated them for the murder of the
deceased. Mr. Satpathy further submits that the
petitioners are having serious criminal antecedents and,
therefore, release of the petitioners at this stage would
facilitate them to influence the trial. Accordingly, Mr.
Satpathy under the aforesaid submission prays to reject
the bail applications of the petitioners.
4. A careful scrutiny of the materials placed
on record, it is found that the petitioners are charged
for murder of one Jitendra Kumar Saha, but the
petitioners seek bail on the pleas that the evidence of
the materials witnesses so far as examined who are
PW.13 to 16 do not corroborate the prosecution
allegation, but it is neither advisable nor acceptable to
appreciate the evidence at the stage of consideration of
bail inasmuch as evidence of the witnesses has to be
considered as a whole, but evidence should not be
considered in isolation with the evidence of other
witnesses who are yet to be examined and at this stage
of consideration bail, appreciation of evidence should be
avoided. Whether the identification of the petitioners by
the witnesses as disputed by the counsel for the
petitioners; or whether the evidence of PW.14 can be
discarded on the ground that he being inimically
disposed of with the petitioners have deposed against
the petitioners; are subject of trial and it cannot be
appreciated at this stage to grant bail to the
petitioners.
5. Indisputably, the deceased Jitendra Kumar
Saha had died of homicidal death and his post-mortem
report reveals that the deceased had sustained four
gunshot wounds and sixteen incised wounds on his
body. Further, the petitioner Arman Qureshi is having
fifteen criminal antecedents, but he has not disclosed a
single criminal antecedent in his bail application. In a
very recent decision in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of
Rajasthan; 2025 INSC 871, the Apex Court has been
pleased to hold in paragraphs-22 and 23 as under:-
"22. Before parting, we would like to state
that, accounting for the criminal antecedents
of the accused while considering the bail
applications has been the subject matter of
concern for Courts across the country. The
rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter
1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as
below:
"5. Bail applications. - In every
application for bail presented to the
High Court the petitioner shall state
whether similar application has or has
not been made to the Supreme Court,
and if made shall state the result
thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall
also mention whether he/she is/was
involved in any other criminal case or
not. If yes, particulars and decisions
thereof. An application which does not
contain this information shall be placed
before the bench with the necessary
information."
23. We feel that every High Court in the
country should consider incorporating a
similar provision in the respective High Court
Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would
impose an obligation on the accused to make
disclosures regarding his/her involvement in
any other criminal case(s) previously
registered."
6. Besides, sixteen out of forty seven
witnesses have already been examined till today and
other witnesses are still to be examined. Much
emphasize was given to the health condition of the
petitioner Amir Khan to grant him bail, but it is not
disputed that the said petitioner was admitted to
interim bail for a period of four weeks by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide an order passed on 22.11.2024
in IA No.1461 of 2024, but the petitioner-Amir Khan
was again granted interim bail for a period of two
weeks vide an order dated 03.01.2025 in IA No.1675 of
2024. Further, the interim bail of the petitioner-Amir
Khan was again extended till 10.02.2025 and
thereafter, the interim bail of the petitioner-Amir Khan
was extended on 07.02.2025 till the next date which
was again extended on 12.02.2025 in IA No.176 of
2025 till next date. However, when the petitioner-Aamir
Khan again prayed for interim bail, this Court in order
to know the health condition of the petitioner-Amir
Khan with his further requirement has by way of an
order dated 24.04.2025 requested the Superintendent
of SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack to form a
medical board for examination of the health condition
of the petitioner-Aamir Khan on a particular date as per
their convenience by intimating the said date to this
Court, but on 15.05.2025 learned counsel for the
petitioner informs this Court that the petitioner-Amir
Khan has already been admitted to SCB Medical College
& Hospital, Cuttack in the department of CTVS/ Ctv Unit
1 under Dr. Manoj Kumar Pattnaik and in such situation
this Court by partial modification directed the
petitioner-Amir Khan to produce all the relevant
documents regarding his treatment as a indoor patient
before this Court by the next date on 17.06.2025, on
which date the learned counsel filed an affidavit stated
to be sworn in by the petitioner-Amir Khan himself
along with photocopy of certain documents, but it was
submitted then that the Cardiology department SCB
Medical College & Hospital returned the petitioner-Amir
Khan by discharging him because he could not operated
on account of higher heart rate and he thereby got
himself admitted in a private hospital namely USTHI
Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where also the doctor refused
to operate the petitioner-Aamir Khan on the ground
that he is having higher heart rate. After this
submission, this Court directed the learned state
Counsel to obtain instruction from the concerned doctor
who had attended the petitioner-Aamir Khan at SCB
Medical College & Hospital at Cuttack and USTHI
Hospital at Bhubaneswar and produce their reports with
regard to refusing to operate the petitioner-Aamir Khan
due to high heart rate. The state counsel accordingly,
produced the written instruction received from IIC
Plantsite PS Rourkela in which it was stated that on
15.05.2025 the petitioner-Aamir Khan took admission
at SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for better
treatment and on 17.05.2025, the petitioner-Aamir
Khan submitted an undertaking before the hospital to
the effect that he is then having no pain in his right leg,
so he wants to take medicine and does not require any
surgery in the leg and thereby, the petitioner himself
has made contradictory statement; one before the
hospital and another one in the Court that the
cardiology department of SCB Medical College &
Hospital doctor has returned him (petitioner-Amir
Khan) by discharging him because he could not be
operated on account of higher heart rate.
7. True it is that the IO in his written
instruction has stated to have discussed with the Dr.
Srikant Debata, USTHI Hospital, Bhubaneswar who
attended the petitioner on 16.06.2025 and stated that
the petitioner-Aamir Khan was not clinically fit for
operation due to his high blood pressure and high heart
rate. In the circumstance, this Court did not extend the
interim bail of the petitioner and directed him vide
order dated 22.07.2025 to surrender to custody on or
before 24.07.2025 and accordingly, the petitioner-Amir
Khan is stated to have surrendered on 24.07.2025. Be
that as it may, the petitioner was on interim bail w.e.f.
19.11.2024 till 24.07.2025 for around eight months,
but neither he could complete his treatment nor was
operated.
8. It is, however, found from the medical
documents submitted by the Superintendent Special
Jail, Bonaigarh that the petitioner is suffering from
varicose vein and he was provided with the treatment
also. The USG Colour Doppler of Right Lower Limb
Vessels of the petitioner as submitted by the
Superintendent Special Jail, Bonaigarh in the medical
documents discloses the following under the heading
"impression":-
Post OP case of varicose vein GSV
visualized upto 8 CM above knee joint
and then not visualized.
Multiple dilated superficial tributaries
noted at right GSV and SSV territories.
A dilated incompetent perforator noted
at right GSV territory.
9. In the aforesaid situation and discussion
made above, this Court does not consider it proper to
again admit the petitioner-Amir Khan to interim bail for
the purpose of treatment, however the jail authority
are directed to provide proper treatment to the
petitioner in case of necessity by following the relevant
rules.
10. In the course of argument, it was
submitted that the petitioner-Aamir Khan is the
informant in the case of the murder of his brother in
which the deceased and PW.14 are the accused. In
such scenario and after having considered the rival
submissions and taking into consideration the nature
and gravity of the offences as alleged against the
petitioners vis-à-vis the allegations sought to be
brought against them and regard being had to the role
as alleged against the petitioners and taking into
account the murder of the deceased Jitendra Kumar
Saha by firing and assaulting with sharp cutting weapon
and keeping in view the trial being going on and the
law laid down by the Apex Court in X Vrs. State of
Rajasthan and another [Special Leave
Petition(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024] disposed of
on 27.11.2024, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
any of the petitioners.
11. Hence, these three bail applications of the
petitioners namely Mustaq Allam @ Mushtaque Alam in
BLAPL No.5761 of 2024, Aamir Khan in BLAPL
No.11344 of 2024 and Arman Qureshi in BLAPL
No.12737 of 2024 stand rejected. Accordingly, the
BLAPLs stand disposed of.
12. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as
per Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 22nd day of August, 2025/Jayakrushna
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
