Biswanath Patro @ Patra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 11568 Ori

Orissa High Court

Biswanath Patro @ Patra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 22 December, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               BLAPL NO.10922 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of
   BNSS, 2023).

   Biswanath Patro @ Patra           ...         Petitioner
                          -versus-

   State of Odisha                   ...     Opposite Party

   For Petitioner         : Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate

   For Opposite Party     : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP
                            Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate
                            (Informant)

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:22.12.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS

by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with

Baliguda PS Case No.188 of 2019 corresponding to ST

Case No.57(A) of 2023 pending in the file of learned

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam,

Berhampur, for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss.302/120-B/109/34 of IPC r/w Sections 25/27 of

Arms Act, on the main allegation of entering into

conspiracy with co-accused persons to commit murder

of one Abhimanyu Panda by firing at him.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Biswa Kumar

Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

although the name of the present petitioner did figure

out in the FIR, but he was not charge-sheeted,

however, on the petition of the prosecution U/S.319 of

CrPC, the petitioner was subsequently arraigned as an

accused, but when he got bail from this Court, the wife

of the deceased challenged the same before the Apex

Court, which allowed the SLP by directing the petitioner

to surrender before the learned Court and, accordingly,

the petitioner in obedience to the order of the Apex

Court, voluntarily surrendered before the learned trial

Court and unsuccessfully moved his bail application

before the learned trial Court. Mr. Mishra further

submits that the main allegation of murdering the

deceased is directed against co-accused Ram Narayan

Nahak, but neither the petitioner was present at the

spot nor was having any role in the commission of

crime and, therefore, the petitioner having been

detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly

be granted bail.

2.1. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. C.

Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

however, by placing reliance to the paragraph-8 of PW-

7 submits that the petitioner had strong enmity with

the deceased and, thereby, he has conspired to kill the

deceased and, therefore, the bail application of the

petitioner may kindly be rejected.

2.2. On the other hand, Mr. Rabi Narayan Rout,

learned counsel for the wife of the deceased (victim)

submits that not only the petitioner was named in the

FIR, but also he had a definite role in committing the

crime, however, the police facilitated the accused-

petitioner to conceal his mobile phone by which the

conspiracy was initiated and the petitioner having prima

facie role in conspiring with the co-accused to eliminate

the deceased, his bail application may kindly be

rejected. Mr. Rout, however, by taking this Court

through the observation of the Apex Court further

submits that the investigating officer did not deem it

appropriate to include the name of the petitioner in the

charge-sheet, but he was subsequently arraigned as an

accused by virtue of an order passed U/S.319 of CrPC

and the learned trial Court while refusing bail to the

petitioner has in fact discussed about the role played by

the present petitioner and since trial having just

commenced without examination of any material

witness, the learned trial Court refused bail to the

petitioner and, therefore, the bail application of the

petitioner may kindly be rejected.

3. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, there appears

allegation against the petitioner for entering into

conspiracy with co-accused persons to eliminate the

deceased, but fact remains that the petitioner was

admittedly not charge-sheeted in this case, however,

the petitioner and four others were subsequently

arraigned as accused persons by virtue of an order

passed on the application U/S.319 of CrPC moved by

the prosecution, however, co-accused Shyama @

Shyam Sundar Patra, Gopal Chandra Patra @ Gopal

Krishna Patra, Ram Chandra Patra and Chintu @

Ananda Prasad Acharya, who have been arraigned as

accused persons in such application U/S.319 of CrPC

moved by the prosecution for entering into conspiracy

with co-accused persons, have already been granted

bail by this Court in BLAPL Nos.8204 of 2024, 11818 of

2024 and 8544 of 2025. Further, there is no direct

allegation against the petitioner for committing murder

of the deceased, rather the allegation of committing

murder of the deceased is directed against the co-

accused Ram Narayan Nahak. The Apex Court while

allowing the SLP preferred by the wife of the deceased

against the order granting bail to the petitioner, has

inter-alia observed the following:-

"The appellant, Chhabirani Panda, is the complainant, whose husband was killed on 10.12.2019. By the impugned order/judgment dated 30.08.2024, the High Court granted bail to the one of accused, Biswanath Patra, respondent No.2 herein.

The operative portion of the impugned order/judgment reads as under:-

"Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced so far by the witnesses in the trial of the co-accused persons and since there is no

direct evidence of assault against the petitioner, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail."

The order is, therefore, bereft of any valid and cogent reasoning as to what weighed with the Court to grant such relief."

4. The aforesaid observation of the Apex

Court makes it very clear that the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court while granting bail has assigned such reason

which was considered by Apex Court to be bereft of any

valid and cogent reasoning as to what weighed to grant

such relief to the petitioner, but this Court has already

given reasoning that the present petitioner was not

present at the scene of crime nor was stated to be

participated directly in commission of the crime, rather

the allegation against him for entering into conspiracy

with co-accused persons and similarly situated co-

accused namely Shyama @ Shyam Sundar Patra, Gopal

Chandra Patra @ Gopal Krishna Patra, Ram Chandra

Patra and Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya have

already been granted bail by this Court and the same

have not been challenged by the wife of the deceased

or the State before higher forum. Additionally, it is

informed by the learned counsel for the wife of the

deceased that the wife of the deceased had in fact

approached this Court for cancellation of bail of accused

Shyama @ Shyam Sundar Patra, but the same was

rejected by this Court and, thereafter, the wife of the

deceased has not carried any SLP against such order

passed by this Court.

5. In view of the above facts and after having

considered the rival submissions and on going through

the materials placed on record, since there appears no

direct material against the petitioner for firing at the

deceased and there being only allegation against the

petitioner for entering into conspiracy with co-accused,

but co-accused standing on similar footing having

already been granted bail by this Court in different bail

applications and the same having not been challenged

before higher forum till today and taking into account

the surrender of the petitioner to custody within the

time fixed by the Apex Court in the SLP and taking into

account the principle that "bail is the rule, but jail is the

exception" and there being no material to indicate that

the petitioner would abscond in the event of his grant

of bail and keeping in view that bail should not be

confused with letting the accused acquitted, rather bail

being a temporary release from the custody and that

too, transfer of custody from law to a private individual,

this Court without expressing any opinion on merits,

considers it proper to admit the petitioner to bail.

6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner

stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on

bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

Fifty Thousand) only with two solvent sureties each for

the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court

in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as

deem fit and proper by it.

7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Location: High Court of Orissa Dated the 22nd day of December, 2025/Subhasmita Date: 23-Dec-2025 19:34:58