Rohit Pradhan vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 11218 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rohit Pradhan vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 15 December, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              BLAPL No.11914 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
   BNSS).

   Rohit Pradhan                       ...        Petitioner
                           -versus-
   State of Odisha                     ... Opposite Party

   For Petitioner           : Mr. P.K. Ray, Advocate
                              along with Mr. K.C. Dash,
                              Advocate

   For Opposite Party       : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP


       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.12.2025 (ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is the bail application U/S.483 of the

BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection

with Burla P.S. Case No.417 of 2023 corresponding

to S.T. Case No.91/14 of 2024 pending in the Court

of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur,

being charge sheeted for commission of offence

punishable U/Ss.302/201/427/435/34 of the IPC, on

the main allegation of committing murder of one

Khirod Tandia by conjointly assaulting him with

lethal weapons, along with co-accused persons in

furtherance of their common intention.

2. Heard, Mr. Prasanta Kishore Ray, learned

counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Krushna

Chandra Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

in the matter and perused the record. In praying to

grant bail, Mr. Ray raises the following points:-

(i) The star witness PW.8 being unworthy of credit for his involvement in other criminal cases cannot be believed and he having not seen the occurrence as admitted in cross-examination, his evidence cannot be relied upon,

(ii) Bail should not be withheld as pre-trial punishment,

(iii) There is complete lack of evidence,

(iv) Co-accused Tuna @ Lalit Badhai having been granted bail, the petitioner is entitled to parity.

(v) Bail is the rule, but jail is the exception and keeping the petitioner in confinement would tantamount to violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India.

3. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, there appears

allegation against the petitioner for assaulting the

deceased conjointly along with co-accused persons

by means of lethal weapons, such as knife, bamboo

lathies, plastic pipes and brickbats and the post

mortem report of the deceased reveal 40 (forty)

injuries including four stab wounds on his person. It

is, however, undisputed that co-accused Tuna @

Lalit Badhai was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in BLAPL No. 9779 of 2024 while

refusing bail to seven co-accused persons. The co-

ordinate Bench while granting bail to aforesaid co-

accused has quoted the evidence of PW.8, an eye

witness by observing inter alia the following:-

"xx xx xx The said eye witnesses have very specifically named the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8, whereas no allegation has been made as against the petitioner No.6- Tuna @ Lalit Badhai. The said accused has been in custody since 12.01.2024.

5. Regard being had to the evidence of the eyewitness, P.W.8, who has stated nothing against the accused No.6- Tuna @ Lalit Badhai, I am inclined to enlarge accused- Petitioner No.6- Tuna @ Lalit Badhai on bail, while rejecting the bail application of the other co-accused persons."

4. Further, it appears that PW.8 has not

uttered the name of the co-accused Tuna @ Lalit

Badhai in his evidence, but the same is not for the

petitioner. Hence, the plea of parity is not applicable

to the petitioner for the reason more than one. In

the context of parity, this Court considers it useful to

refer to the decision in Sagar vs. State of U.P. &

Another; (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2584, wherein

the Apex Court after referring to earlier precedents

has observed in Paragraphs-10 & 11 as under:-

"10. The question that arises for consideration is whether, as done by the High Court in the impugned order, parity with the co-accused persons can be the sole reason for granting bail. Bail has often been stated to be the rule, and jail, the exception. This cannot be emphasized enough. At the same time, this, however, does not mean that the relief of bail is to be granted without due regard to the circumstances involved in the alleged offence for which the accused person has been arrested. In this regard, it has to be noted that a Court, while granting bail, has to consider a number of aspects. Judgments too many to count, delivered by this Court have delineated the relevant considerations to be kept in mind. A recent reiteration thereof was in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690. The relevant extracts thereof are as under :-

"19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows:

(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;

(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;

(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court.

[See: Y v. State of Rajasthan; (2022)9 SCC 269; Jaibunisha v.Meherban;

(2022) 5 SCC 465 and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu; (2023) 13 SCC 549]

(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime;

(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and

(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above."

11. It is clear from the perusal of the above factors that the High Court failed to consider all that was relevant. On parity, it is necessary to refer to Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana(Koli) and Anr; (2021) 6 SCC 230. This Court observed that while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be utilized solely because another accused person was granted bail in connection with the same offence, and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter of right. [See also: Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of

Enforcement;2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 & Sabita Paul v. State of West Bengal and Anr; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 374]"

5. It is, however, contended for the

petitioner that PW.8 is unworthy of credit, since he

is having some criminal cases, but it is not the rule

that a person having some criminal case registered

against him cannot be a competent witness or an

unreliable witness, unless his character antecedents

is a question of fact having nexus with the

accusations against the accused persons or he has

bias towards the accused persons. Be that as it may,

the criminal case registered against PW8 as elicited

from his mouth in para-14 of his deposition is for

commission of insignificant offences unconnected

with the present case. No doubt, it is elicited from

PW.8 on recall after 1 year and 3 months that he

has not seen the faces of persons, who assaulted the

deceased, but such admission in cross-examination

after such a long duration may not be relevant for

consideration in bail proceedings, since law is well

settled that elaborate and detail consideration of

evidence should not be undertaken at the time of

consideration of bail of the applicant.

6. There cannot be any denying that bail

should not be withheld as pre-trial punishment, but

law is equally settled that grant or refusal of bail

would depend on the balance struck between the

nature and gravity of the offences, the severity of

the allegations against the accused, the enormity of

punishment for offence on conviction, reasonable

apprehension of witnesses to be influenced by the

accused, the frivolity of charge brought by the

prosecution, the criminal antecedent of the

applicant, impact of grant of bail to the applicant on

the society and last but not the least, the prima facie

satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge

against the accused.

7. What is no less important is that "bail is

the rule, but jail is the exception", but a person

accused of offence punishable with capital

punishment cannot lightly be considered for grant of

bail on the aforesaid principle without recourse or

discussion of the relevant consideration of factors

elucidated by the Apex Court in a plethora of

decisions which are referred to in the previous

paragraph. In the present case, there is not only

serious allegation against the petitioner, but also the

same is on the basis of materials collected by the

prosecution and right now, the trial is going on. It

would not, therefore, be advisable to consider the

bail application of the petitioner so lightly in view of

the precedent laid down by the Apex Court in X vs.

State of Rajasthan; (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3539,

wherein it has been held as under:-

"ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc, once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused."

8. On reverting back to the record, there

appears allegation against the petitioner for

assaulting the deceased conjointly with other

accused person by lethal weapons and the post

mortem report of the deceased reveals about 40

injuries including four stab wounds on the person of

the deceased. Further, the cause of death of the

deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a

result of multiple injures as opined by the doctor

conducting autopsy on the dead body of the

deceased. Besides, the weapon of offences such as

PVC pipes, bamboo stick, broken brick pieces and

knife have been seized in this case. In the aforesaid

circumstances and on conspectus of materials placed

on record including the allegations leveled against

the petitioner and regard being had to the materials

collected in support of the allegation against the

petitioner and trial being going on with examination

of material witnesses in the meantime, this Court

does not find any good ground bail to the petitioner.

9. Hence, the bail application of the

Petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL

stands disposed of.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Reason: Authentication Dated the 15th day of December, 2025/S.Sasmal Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 19-Dec-2025 13:37:48