[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena vs State Of Odisha on 24 December, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
I.A. No. 926 of 2023
(Arising out of CRLA No.423 of 2023)
Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena ... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
I.A. No. 1366 of 2023
(Arising out of CRLA No.629 of 2023)
Suman Kumar Das ... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr.Soura Chandra Mohapatra
Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
I.A. No. 2097 of 2023
(Arising out of CRLA No.758 of 2023)
Babulu @ Nihar Ranjan Das @ ... Appellant/
Patnaik Petitioner
Mr.Yasobanta Das, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Page 1 of 41
[2]
I.A. No. 2508 of 2023
(Arising out of CRLA No.1141 of 2023)
Madhia @ Madhab Das ... Appellant/
Petitioner
None
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
(In all the CRLA, for the State of
Odisha)
Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC
Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty,
Sr. Advocate
Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, Advocate
(for the informant)
--------------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SHANKAR MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Order: 24.12.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. SAHOO, J. The appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena in CRLA
No.423 of 2023 has filed I.A. No.926 of 2023, the appellant
Suman Kumar Das in CRLA No.629 of 2023 has filed I.A.
Page 2 of 41
[3]
No.1366 of 2023, appellant Babulu @ Nihar Ranjan Das @
Patnaik in CRLA No.758 of 2023 has filed I.A. No.2097 of 2023
and the appellant Madhia @ Madhab Das in CRLA No.1141 of
2025 has filed I.A. No.2508 of 2023 for bail.
Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that Binod Bihari
Das (hereafter 'the deceased') was the younger brother of Ras
Bihari Das, the informant of the case. The informant was having
a liquor shop at Brahmanajharilo, Cuttack and he had business
rivalry with the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena. On
16.12.2015 at about 04.30 p.m., the informant Ras Bihari Das
received a telephonic call from his supervisor, namely, Rohit,
who informed him that while the deceased was supervising the
construction work of their shop room situated at Brahmanajharilo
by standing in front of the said half-constructed shop room, two
persons came in a motorcycle, purchased liquor from the
adjacent liquor shop and suddenly came near the deceased and
shot fire at him. They were also uttering in loud voice, "TO BADA
BHAI BABU AMA TULIA BHAI SAHITA BEPARA RE TAKKAR
DEUCHI, TAKU BI MARIBU, AJI TOTE BI MARIBU" (Your elder
brother Babu is competing with our Tulia Bhai in business; We
will kill him; Today we will also kill you). It is the further
Page 3 of 41
[4]
prosecution case that due to business rivalry, the appellant Tulia
@ Nigamananda Jena and his wife Jinmayee Jena were
threatening the informant to kill him and his family members.
Being enraged, they took revenge and killed the deceased by
hiring professional criminals.
The informant Ras Bihari Das lodged a written report
before the Inspector in-charge of Sadar Police Station, Cuttack,
on the basis of which Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.359 dated
06.12.2015 was registered under sections 302/452/380/120-
B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25/27 of the
Arms Act and investigation was taken up and on completion of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants
for the offences under sections 302/452/380/120-B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code read with sections 25 (1-AA)/27 of the Arms
Act.
The case was committed to the Court of Session after
completing due formalities. The appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda
Jena faced trial in the Court of learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge,
Cuttack in S.T. Case No.134 of 2018 and he was found guilty for
the offences under sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
Page 4 of 41
[5]
and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a
further period of one year for the said offences.
The appellants, Suman Kumar Das, Babulu @ Nihar
Ranjan Das @ Patnaik and Madhia @ Madhab Das faced trial in
the Court of learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T.
Case No.79 of 2017 and they were found guilty under sections
302/452/392/120-B/34 of IPC and sections 25(l-B)/27 of Arms
Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/- each, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period
of one year for the offence under section 302/34 of I.P.C., to
undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in
default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year for the
offence under section 302/120-B/34 of I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for
seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to
undergo R.I. for a further period of six months for the offence
under section 452/34 of I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for ten years and
to a pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo R.I. for
six months for the offence under section 392/34 of I.P.C., to
undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under
section 25(1-B) of Arms Act and to undergo R.I. for five years
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a
Page 5 of 41
[6]
period of four months for the offence under section 27 of the
Arms Act and all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
3. Challenging the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence, the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena preferred
CRLA No.423 of 2023, which was admitted on 19.05.2023 and
an order was passed staying realisation of fine pending disposal
of the appeal. The appellant filed I.A. No.926 of 2023 under
section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of sentence
imposed upon him and a coordinate Bench of this Court by order
dated 09.10.2023, directed release of the appellant on bail.
Challenging the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence, the appellant Suman Kumar Das preferred CRLA
No.629 of 2023, which was admitted on 22.06.2023 and an
order was passed staying realisation of fine pending disposal of
the appeal. The appellant Suman Kumar Das filed I.A. No.1366
of 2023 under section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of
sentence imposed upon him and a coordinate Bench of this Court
by order dated 09.10.2023, directed release of the appellant on
bail.
Page 6 of 41
[7]
Challenging the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence, the appellant Babulu @ Nihar Ranjan Das @
Patnaik preferred CRLA No.758 of 2023, which was admitted on
30.08.2023 and an order was passed staying realisation of fine
pending disposal of the appeal. The appellant Babulu @ Nihar
Ranjan Das @ Patnaik filed I.A. No.2097 of 2023 under section
389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of sentence imposed
upon him and a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated
09.10.2023, directed release of the appellant on bail.
Challenging the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence, the appelalnt Madhia @ Madhab Das preferred
CRLA No.1141 of 2023, which was admitted on 31.10.2023 and
an order was passed staying realisation of fine pending disposal
of the appeal. The appellant Madhia @ Madhab Das filed I.A.
No.714 of 2025 for interim bail on the ground of death of his
mother and this Court by order dated 05.03.2025 directed
release of the appellant on interim bail for a period of two weeks
and the appellant surrendered before the learned trial Court and
remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2025. He has filed I.A.
No.2508 of 2023 for bail.
4. Challenging the orders of this Court dated
09.10.2023 in directing release of the three appellants Tulia @
Page 7 of 41
[8]
Nigamananda Jena, Suman Kumar Das and Babulu @ Nihar
Ranjan Das @ Patnaik, the informant Ras Bihari Das preferred
Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos.457 of 2024, 458 of 2024
and 459 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Hon'ble Court vide a common order dated 07.05.2024 set aside
the bail orders dated 09.10.2023 and remanded the interlocutory
applications for bail filed by the said appellants to this Court for
fresh disposal. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court enlarged
the three appellants on bail on the strength of the bail already
granted by this Court till 15.05.2024, on which date this Court
was requested to pass appropriate orders in the matter of its
continuance or otherwise pending disposal of the interlocutory
applications for suspension of sentence.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 07.05.2024, a coordinate Bench of this
Court took up the interim applications for bail on 15.05.2024 and
granted time to the learned counsel for the State so also learned
counsel for the informant to file written objections and extended
the bail granted to the three appellants till the next date, which
was fixed to 28.06.2024. The matter was then taken up on
26.07.2024 and though the learned counsel for the informant
filed objection, but the learned counsel for the State took time to
Page 8 of 41
[9]
file written objection and prayer was allowed and the case was
posted to 09.08.2024, however no order was passed in
extending the bail granted to the three appellants. The matter
was then taken up on 16.08.2024, on which date the learned
counsel for the State filed objection and the matters were
adjourned to 1st week of September 2024. On 06.09.2024, the
coordinate Bench heard the matters, concluded the hearing and
reserved the order. However, again the matters were listed on
08.10.2024 and the following order was passed:
"1. This matter is taken up through hybrid
mode.
2. While perusing the materials placed for
addressing the rival submissions in passing the
order; this Court feels it apposite to take into
account the conduct of the Appellant during all
these periods when he has been enjoying the
liberty in view of the order passed by us, which is
continuing to be in force and now required to be
passed afresh giving a relook keeping in view the
order of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also his
conduct while inside the jail.
In that view of the matter, learned
Additional Government Advocate is directed to
obtain a report from the proper quarter to the
above effect, by the next date of listing.
Page 9 of 41
[ 10 ]
3. List this matter in the 3rd week of
November, 2024."
Then the matters were listed before the coordinate
Bench of this Court on 11.02.2025, 18.03.2025, 22.04.2025 and
got adjourned on the prayer of the parties.
This Bench took up the matter for the first time on
01.12.2025. After perusing the order dated 07.05.2024 passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in setting aside the bail orders
and remanding the bail applications to this Court for fresh
disposal, since we find that even though the matters were taken
up on 26.07.2024, 08.10.2024, 11.02.2025, 18.03.2025 and on
22.04.2025, but the bail orders granted on 15.05.2024 till 28th
June 2024 in the case of the three appellants were not extended
further and the appellants had not surrendered despite non-
extension of the bail orders, we directed the appellants to
surrender by 06.12.2025 and produce the surrender certificates
and further directed the matter to be listed on 10.12.2025 for
hearing of the bail applications. It was further observed that if
the three appellants failed to surrender by 06.12.2025, the
Superintendent of Police/Commissionerate of Police,
Bhubaneswar-Cuttack shall ensure that the appellants are
arrested and produced before the learned trial Court and
Page 10 of 41
[ 11 ]
thereafter, the learned trial Court shall remand them to judicial
custody and report to this Court.
Challenging the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2025
passed in CRLA No.758 of 2023 and CRLA No.423 of 2023, the
appellants, namely, Babulu @ Nihar Ranjan Das @ Patnaik and
Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos.19660 and 19666 of 2025 and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide common order dated 05.12.2025 has been
pleased to extend the interim bail granted to the appellants till
the next date of hearing fixed by this Court.
However, since we found that appellant Suman
Kumar Das has not approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court
against an order dated 01.12.2025 and there was a direction to
him also to surrender before the learned trial Court by
06.12.2025 and in case, he failed to surrender by that date, the
Superintendent of Police/Commissionerate of Police,
Bhubaneswar-Cuttack shall ensure his arrest and produce him
before the learned trial Court who shall remand him to judicial
custody and report to this Court, we called for a report from the
learned trial Court as to why without verifying as to whether the
appellant Suman Kumar Das had approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court or not, blindly accepted the copy of the order
Page 11 of 41
[ 12 ]
which was in favour of appellants Tulia @ Nigmananda Jena and
Babulu @ Nihar Ranjan Das @ Pattnaik and extended the interim
order granted to the appellant till the next date of hearing before
this Court. The DCP filed an affidavit that the appellant Suman
Kumar Das has surrendered before the learned trial Court on
10.12.2025 and produced the order sheet of the learned trial
Court in accepting the surrender of the appellant and committing
him to jail custody.
6. Pursuant to the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the State has
filed objection to the bail application filed by the appellants.
In the said objection, it has been stated that in order
to bring home the charges, the prosecution has relied upon
twenty two charge sheet witnesses, among them the evidences
of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14 and 20 have been relied
upon in order to find guilt of the appellants, out of which seven
eye witnesses viz. P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 have been
examined, who stated against the appellants for their
involvement in the crime and their testimony has been clearly
and cogently corroborated by the testimony of the Investigating
Officer i.e., P.W.21. It is further stated that the weapon of
offence i.e., M.O.II & III have been seized at the instance of the
Page 12 of 41
[ 13 ]
appellants, namely, Suman Kumar Das and Babulu @ Nihar
Ranjan Das @ Pattnaik and P.W. 14 deposed as a witness to the
recovery of weapons under section 27 of Evidence Act and he
has also supported the prosecution case against all the
appellants. It is also stated that prior to the occurrence, an F.I.R.
was also lodged by the informant (P.W.20) against the appellant
Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena and another Chagala Mallick and a
poster was pasted on the wall of the informant's house where it
was written that the appellants would kill the informant and his
family members if the informant would stand on the way of their
brother/appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena. It is also stated
that P.W.19, who is the Scientific Officer, proved the biological
sample and P.W.22 examined the cartridge and pistol who is the
expert witness in the case and proved his report, confirmed that
the cartridge fired, was from the said pistols, M.Os.II and III. It
is also stated that P.W.6 and P.W.7 have categorically stated
against the appellants, namely, Suman Kumar Das and Babulu @
Nihar Ranjan Das @ Pattnaik that they fired at the deceased
from their guns and the post mortem report proves the
corresponding gun-shot injuries inflicted on the deceased. The
other accused persons are the instigators and the incident had
taken place at the instance of the appellants Tulia @
Page 13 of 41
[ 14 ]
Nigamananda Jena and Madhia @ Madhab Das with their
common intention and out of the conspiracy of all the four
appellants. It is also stated that the eye-witness P.W.11 has
identified the appellants, Babulu @ Nihar Ranjan Das @ Pattnaik
and Suman Kumar Das in the T.I. parade. It is also stated that
P.W.2 who is one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence has
specifically stated in his evidence that the aforesaid appellants
came to his house and threatened his wife and children at the
point of gun to the effect that if P.W.2 would say anything in the
Court against them, they would kill all his family members. In
the said objection, it is also mentioned about the criminal
antecedents against all the appellants, which are as follows:
Name of the Details of the Criminal Cases
Appellants
Tulia @ a) Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.106
Nigamananda Jena dtd.21.04.1990 U/s.341/324/294/34
I.P.C.
(Appellant in CRLA
No.423/2023) b) Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.187
dtd.19.06.1990 U/s.147/148/336/
294/149 I.P.C.
c) Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.548
dtd.24.12.1993 U/s.302/34 I.P.C.
d) Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.41
dtd.21.04.1997 U/s.341/323/506/34
I.P.C.
e) Jagatsinghpur P.S. Non-FIR No.16
dtd.14.02.1999 U/s.110 I.P.C.
Page 14 of 41
[ 15 ]
f) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.252
dtd.21.10.1998 U/s.364/302/201/34
I.P.C.
g) Tirtol P.S Case No.187 dtd.
21.07.1999 U/s.341/294/307/34
I.P.C. read with 25/27 Arms Act.
h) Biridi P.S Case No.32 dtd.31.03.2015
U/s.294/ 506/507/387/120-B I.P.C.
i) Biridi P.S Case No.39 dtd.14.04.2015
U/s.294/387/506/34 I.P.C.
j) NSA Order No.571/Con. Dt.
05.08.1999 of District Collector,
Jagatsinghur.
k) Govindapur P.S. Case No.79 Dt.
26.11.2013 U/s. 294/452/386/307/
506/34 I.P.C.
l) Biridi P.S Case No.96 dtd.03.12.2015
U/s.387/506/294/34 I.P.C. & 25/27
of Arms Act
m) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.318
dtd.01.11.2013 U/s.294/506/34 I.P.C.
& sec. 9(b) of I.E. Act.
n) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.359
dtd.06.12.2015 U/s.302/452/392/
120-B/34 I.P.C. & sec.25(i-AA)/27 of
Arms Act.
o) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.288
dtd.04.10.2015 U/s.294/386/34 I.P.C.
& sec. 9(b) of I.E. Act.
p) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.359
dtd.06.12.2015 U/s.302/452/120-B/
34 I.P.C. & sec. 25/27 of Arms Act.
q) Oltapur P.S. Case No.98 dt.
14.12.2015 U/s.392 of I.P.C. &
Sections 25/27 of Arms Act.
r) Oltapur P.S. Case No. 99 dt.
Page 15 of 41
[ 16 ]
15.12.2015 U/s. 307/387/34 of I.P.C.
& Sections 25/27 of Arms Act.
Suman Kumar Das a) Madhupatna P.S. Case No.16 dt.
17.08.2007 U/s 379/34 I.P.C.
(Appellant in CRLA
No.629 of 2023) b) Madhupatna P.S. Case No.26 dt.
22.02.2014 U/s 341/323/294/506/34
I.P.C. & 25/27 Arms Act.
c) Madhupatna P.S Non-FIR Case No.12
dt.23.08.2013 U/s 110 Cr.P.C.
d) Malgodown P.S. Case No.59
dt.16.07.2008 U/s 399/402 I.P.C. &
25/27 Arms Act.
e) Malgodown P.S. Case No.101
dt.31.10.2009 U/s. 393/34 I.P.C.
f) Raghunathpur P.S. Case No.14
dt.07.02.2014 U/s.341/379/ 302/34
IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.
g) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.288
dt.04.10.2015 U/s. 294/386/34 I.P.C.
h) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.359
dt.06.12.2015 U/s.302/452/120-B/34
IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.
i) Oltapur PS Case No.98 dtd.
14.12.2015 U/s.392 I.P.C. & 25/27
Arms Act.
j) Oltapur P.S. Case No.99 dtd.
15.12.2015 U/s.307/387/34 I.P.C. &
25/27 Arms Act.
Babulu @ Nihar a) Tirtol P.S. Case No. 64 dt. 16.03.2013
Ranjan Das @ U/s 394/34 I.P.C. & Sec. 25/27 Arms
Patnaik Act.
(Appellant in CRLA b) Tirtol P.S. Case No.65 Dt. 16.03.2013
758/2023) U/s.341/387/307/34 I.P.C. & Sec.
25/27 Arms Act.
Page 16 of 41
[ 17 ]
c) Tirtol P.S. Case No.71 dt.25.03.2013
U/s.147/148/307/385/435/149 I.P.C.
and 25/27 Arms Act & Sec.3 of
Explosive Substance Act.
d) Malgodown P.S. Case No.59 dt.
16.07.2008 U/s.399/402 I.P.C. &
Sec. 25/27 Arms Act.
e) Khurda Town P.S. Case No.206 dt.
20.05.2013 U/s.394 I.P.C. & Sec.
25/27 Arms Act.
f) Airfield P.S. Case No.68
dt.26.06.2012 U/s.307/34 I.P.C.
g) Khandagiri P.S. Case No.120
dt.02.10.2011 U/s.448/444/294/506
I.P.C.
h) Tamando P.S. Case No.33 dt.
29.03.2013 U/s.294/506/34 I.P.C. &
Sec. 25/27 Arms Act.
i) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.288
dt.04.10.2015 U/s.294/386/34 I.P.C.
j) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.359
dt.06.12.2015 U/s.302/452/120-B/34
I.P.C. & 25/27 Arms Act.
k) Oltapur P.S. Case No.98
dt.14.12.2015 U/s.392 I.P.C. & 25/27
Arms Act.
l) Oltapur P.S. Case No.99
dt.15.12.2015 U/s.307/387/34 I.P.C.
& 25/27 Arms Act.
Madhia @ Madhab a) Oltapur P.S. Case No. 33
Das dt.01.06.2014 U/s.302/120-B/34
I.P.C.
(Appellant in CRLA
No.1141 of 2023) b) Oltapur P.S. Case No.35
dt.06.05.2015 U/s.506 I.P.C. & 3(a)
Explosive Substance Act.
Page 17 of 41
[ 18 ]
c) Oltapur P.S. Case No.51 dt.
29.06.2015 U/s.386 I.P.C.
d) Oltapur P.S. Case No.59 dt.
28.07.2015 U/s.386/120-B I.P.C. &
3(a) Explosive Substance Act.
e) Oltapur P.S. Case No.74
dt.13.09.2015 U/s.294/506/386/307/
34 I.P.C. & 3(a) Explosive Substance
Act.
f) Oltapur P.S. Case No.93
dt.20.11.2015 U/s.307/387/324/34
IPC & 9(b) I.E. Act.
g) Oltapur P.S. Case No.98
dt.14.12.2015 U/s.392 I.P.C. & 25
Arms Act.
h) Oltapur P.S. Case No.99
dtd.15.12.2015 U/s.307/387/34 I.P.C.
& 25/27 Arms Act.
i) Govindapur P.S. Case No. 60
dt.11.09.2014 U/s.341/324/ 307/506/
34 I.P.C. & 9(b) I.E. Act.
j) Govindapur P.S. Case No.20
dt.13.03.2015 U/s. 302/201 I.P.C.
k) Govindapur P.S. Case No.04
dt.19.01.2015 U/s. 399/402 I.P.C.
l) Govindapur P.S. Case No.29
dt.06.05.2015 U/s.399/402 I.P.C.
m) Govindapur P.S. Case No.39
dt.10.06.2015 U/s.399/402 I.P.C. &
3(a) Explosive Substance Act.
n) Niali P.S.Case No.137 dt. 28.06.2015
U/s.294/506/353/307/120-B I.P.C. &
9(b) I.E. Act/Sec 3(a) Explosive
Substance Act & 25/27 Arms Act.
Page 18 of 41
[ 19 ]
o) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.288
dt.04.10.2015 U/s.294/386/34 I.P.C.
p) Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.359
dt.06.12.2015 U/s.302/452/120-B/34
IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.
q) Oltapur P.S. Case No.98 dtd.
14.12.2015 U/s.392 I.P.C. & 25/27
Arms Act.
r) Oltapur P.S. Case No.99
dt.15.12.2015 U/s.307/387/34 IPC &
25/27 Arms Act.
It is also stated that the appellant Tulia @
Nigamananda Jena is the master mind behind the crime and for
whom the entire incident had occurred, which has been
especially proved by P.W.20 and all other eye witnesses. It is
also stated that the informant's family are in a panic state and
they are feeling danger to their lives if the appellants are
enlarged on bail. It is also stated that the bail of the appellants
should be rejected on the following grounds:
(i) If the convicted accused persons/appellants
are released on bail, they may take revenge on the
informant and his family members;
(ii) If the convicted accused persons/appellants
are released on bail, they may create havoc under
Sadar Police Station jurisdiction;
Page 19 of 41
[ 20 ]
(iii) If the convicted accused persons/appellants
are released on bail, they may commit similar types
of offences under Sadar Police Station jurisdiction;
(iv) If the convicted accused persons/appellants
are released on bail, they may collect dada bati from
the shopkeepers by terrorizing in the locality;
(v) If the convicted accused persons/appellants
are released on bail, the criminal activities will
increase day by day in the locality.
The informant has also filed objection to the interim
applications for suspension of sentence wherein he has stated
that the appellants Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena, Suman Kumar
Das and Madhaba Das came to the liquor shop of the deceased
to purchase liquor and as per the statements of the occurrence
witnesses, had cold bloodedly murdered the deceased by using
gun. It is further stated that the appellants were identified in the
T.I. parade and also in the trial and their conviction is based on
direct evidence. It is further stated P.W.2 identified the appellant
Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena in T.I. parade and stated four armed
persons came to his house and threatened his wife and son by
putting a revolver to their heads, stating that they would kill
P.W.2's entire family if he dared to give evidence in the case. It
is further stated that the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena is
Page 20 of 41
[ 21 ]
a die-hard criminal and releasing him on bail would definitely
endanger the lives of the witnesses. It is further stated that prior
to 15-20 days of the incident, threats were received by the
informant over phone and to that effect, F.I.R. was also lodged.
It is further stated that after release of the appellant Tulia @
Nigamananda Jena on bail, the informant filed CRLMP No.2194 of
2023 and subsequently, he was granted protection by the
Witness Protection Cell after appraising the threat perception to
the informant. The informant has further stated that in view of
the availability of large number of criminal antecedents against
all the appellants and their conduct, they should not be enlarged
on bail.
Appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena has filed his
reply to the objection filed by the State wherein it is stated that
he had not been found guilty of the offences under sections
452/392/34 of I.P.C. read with sections 25(1-B)/27 of the Arms
Act, rather he has been convicted under sections 302/120-B/34
of I.P.C. It is further stated that none of the eye witnesses
examined during trial has stated about the presence of the
appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena at the spot on the date of
incident and P.W.21, the I.O. in his evidence has admitted that
appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena was in jail custody at the
Page 21 of 41
[ 22 ]
time of incident. It is further stated that no fire arm was
recovered from the appellant for which he was acquitted of the
charges under sections 25(1-B)/27 of the Arms Act. It is further
stated that the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena is a licensed
Super-class contractor under R & B Deptt., Government of
Odisha and P.W.20, the informant has neither led any evidence
that he or his deceased brother had ever having a contractor's
license nor prosecution has led any evidence at the trial that
appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena had any liquor vending
license or any illicit liquor business to establish the allegations of
business rivalry between the informant or his deceased brother
with him. With regard to the incident relating to the poster stuck
on the wall of the informant's house at his village is concerned, it
is stated that the prosecution has examined the then I.I.C., Biridi
P.S. as P.W.15 wherein he has deposed that the appellant Tulia
@ Nigamananda Jena is not involved in Biridi P.S. Case No.94 of
2015 registered for that incident in which he had arrested one
Samir Pattnaik and Deepak @ Subhakanta Das and vide Ext.11,
the I.O. P.W.21 had seized the documents relating to Biridi P.S.
No.94 of 2015. It is further stated that neither M.O.II nor M.O.
III has been established to have any connection with the
appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena in the trial. It is further
Page 22 of 41
[ 23 ]
stated that during investigation, P.W.21 found no evidence of the
other appellants having met the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda
Jena at any time before the incident or of their being together at
any time. It is further stated that the appellant Tulia @
Nigamananda Jena was all along in custody and is no way
connected with the allegations. It is further stated that the
appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena has not been convicted in
any of the criminal cases registered against him as on date and
his detentions under N.S.A. were quashed by this Court. It is
further stated that pursuant to the bail order passed by this
Court, the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena has been
appearing before the Inspector in-charge of Sadar police station
on each Monday of the week and no allegation of overt act has
been reported against him during the said period.
7. Since common question of law and facts are involved
in all these bail applications arising out the aforesaid four
criminal appeals, they were heard together and disposed of by
this common order.
8. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena emphatically contended
that P.Ws.6 and 12 were examined on 09.12.2015 and the other
appellants were arrested on 06.01.2016 and the appellant Tulia
Page 23 of 41
[ 24 ]
@ Nigamananda Jena being in custody, remand report was filed
and he was produced on 30.04.2016 and on completion of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants
under sections 302/452/392/120-B/34 of I.P.C. and sections 25
and 27 of the Arms Act. He further submitted that submission of
the learned counsel for the informant that the list of antecedents
furnished in para 3 of the informant's objection contains both list
of antecedents where the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena
was apprehended as well as where he had not been
apprehended, is not borne out from the objection itself and there
has been no recovery from either the person or the possession of
the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena of anything even
remotely incriminating him in the incident. Learned counsel
further submitted that the objections filed by both the State as
well as the informant have been rebutted by filing replies thereto
admitting the antecedents and stating that none of those cases
have so far been culminated in conviction of the appellant Tulia
@ Nigamananda Jena, which has not been controverted either by
the State or by the informant. Learned counsel further submitted
that none of the eye witnesses have stated to have seen the co-
appellants along with appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena
together before the incident to establish prior meeting of minds.
Page 24 of 41
[ 25 ]
He further submitted that admittedly, the appellant Tulia @
Nigamananda Jena was not present at the spot and he was in
custody prior to the date of incident and the I.O. (P.W.22)
admitted that no materials have been seized by him during
investigation to show that the other appellants met the appellant
Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena either in jail or in Court or on his
remand dates before 06.12.2015. It is further submitted that
P.W.6 Ganesh Ch. Mallick and P.W.12 Ajit Kumar Routray
examined by the I.O. as eye witnesses to the incident on
09.12.2015 claimed to have seen both the appellants Nihar and
Suman firing at the deceased and have not stated to have heard
the assailants of deceased naming the appellant Tulia @
Nigamananda Jena. Learned counsel further submitted that
P.W.1 Bharat Maharana, an eye witness to the occurrence stated
to be the driver of the deceased has stated that one of the two
persons went up to the deceased and fired at him, but has not
stated that while firing, the assailant was taking the name of
appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena. He further submitted that
P.W.2 Bijay Kukmar Ray @ Babuli, who is an eye witness to the
occurrence and salesman of the liquor shop of the informant
stated that on coming out of the shop, he saw the assailants
after firing the deceased, were kicking him and taking the name
Page 25 of 41
[ 26 ]
of the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena. He further
submitted that P.W.3 Paresh Jena is not an eye witness and he
stated to have heard the murder of the deceased by the
appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena through his associate.
Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.5 Mir Babar Ali, an
eye witness and labour contractor of market building stated that
while he was talking with the deceased, one person came to him,
queried about liquor price and fired at his belly and while firing,
the assailant was taking the name of appellant Tulia @
Nigamananda Jena. He further submitted that P.W.7 Pratap
Kumar Sahoo, an eye witness and salesman of liquor shop
owned by the informant has not stated to have heard assailants
of deceased naming the appellant. He further submitted that
P.W.9 Rohit Kumar Das, who is not an eye witness, is the IMFL
shop's supervisor and was informed by P.W.7 Pratap and
informed P.W.20 and did not implicate the appellant Tulia @
Nigamananda Jena. He further submitted that P.W.11 Bapi
Mallick, an eye witness and salesman of Liquor shop owned by
the informant stated that he saw both firing at deceased and
then took away his belongings and were taking the name of
appellant Tulia. He further submitted that P.W.15 Ranjan Kumar
Mallick, the I.I.C. of Biridi P.S., who is an witness to the seizure
Page 26 of 41
[ 27 ]
of records in Biridi P.S. Case No.94 of 2015 and the poster seized
in this case during trial by P.W.22, in his cross-examination has
stated that the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena was not
involved in Biridi P.S. Case No.94 of 2015. He further submitted
that both P.Ws.6 and 12 did not immediately disclose of having
seen the incident and were examined three days after the
incident for which no reasonable explanation has been given.
Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant Tulia @
Nigamananda Jena, who was unknown to all the eye witnesses,
was neither put to T.I. parade nor they have stated about his
presence at or near the spot. Learned counsel further submitted
that with regard to the allegation of the prosecution regarding
prior meeting of minds between the appellants, it is admitted by
the I.O. that the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena was in jail
custody prior to the incident, but he has not got any material
during investigation to show that the appellant Tulia @
Nigamananda Jena was previously unknown to others or that
they had all met together or conversed together at any time
before the incident or had committed any criminal act together.
Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of P.W.14
Pabitra Mahapatra is that while in custody, the appellant Nihar
had disclosed in presence of I.O. and other policemen of having
Page 27 of 41
[ 28 ]
been contacted by appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena over
phone and asked to do away with the deceased and had supplied
him with guns for the purpose and his testimony, is at best an
extra-judicial confession before him, who was neither known to
the person making the statement and who is a co-accused.
Learned counsel further submitted that as on the date of
judgment, the appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena had
undergone almost seven years of custodial detention as UTP,
whereafter, he had undergone almost six months of custodial
detention as a convict and his conduct in jail and also while on
bail, has been exemplary and that he had abided by all
conditions of bail and therefore, it is a fit case where the
appellant Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena should be enlarged on bail.
Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the appellant Suman Kumar Das (in
CRLA No.629 of 2023) filed his reply to the objections filed by
the State and the informant and argued that the appellant
Suman Kumar Das has got ten nos. of criminal antecedents, out
of which in five cases, he has been acquitted and one case has
been closed and in rest of the four cases, he is on bail. Learned
Senior Advocate further submitted that the statement of the eye
witness P.W.1 that the appellant Nihar had fired the gun shot
Page 28 of 41
[ 29 ]
and the appellant Suman was standing near the bike at the
relevant time of occurrence, cannot be believed as because
P.W.2 did not identify the appellant Suman in Court and that
apart, P.W.3 stated that three persons came and killed the
deceased, who is not a witness to the test identification parade.
He further stated that P.W.4 is not a T.I. parade witness as
because in his cross-examination, he stated that he had no direct
knowledge of the incident and P.W.5 has not identified the
appellant Suman in Court. He further submitted that P.W.6,
P.W.7 and P.W.11 had not specifically stated the role of the
appellant Suman. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.12
cannot be treated as an eye witness to the occurrence, rather,
he is a post-occurrence witness in view of his statements made
in cross-examination. He further stated that P.W.14 is not an eye
witness to the occurrence, rather he is a witness to the
extrajudicial confession made by appellant Nihar about the
commission of crime as per Ext.5 as well as leading to recovery
of the gun. Learned counsel further submitted that in the cross-
examination of P.W.14, who is a witness to the leading to
discovery, stated that the statement of the appellant Suman
does not bear the time and place where it was recorded and
further stated that he did not see the seized article in Court. He
Page 29 of 41
[ 30 ]
further submitted that the informant (P.W.20) was not present at
the time of occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that
the appellant Suman was granted interim bail twice by this Court
vide order dated 04.01.2022 in BLAPL No.11447 of 2021 (I.A.
No.1381 of 2021) and order dated 22.12.2022 in BLAPL
No.121404 of 2022 respectively and after availing the interim
bail periods, he surrendered before the learned trial Court in
time and never misutilized the liberty and therefore, the bail
application of the appellant Suman Kumar Das may be
favourably considered.
Mr. Yasobanta Das, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant Babulu @ Nihar Ranjan Das @
Patnaik (in CRLA No.758 of 2023) submitted that out of twelve
criminal antecedents, in some cases, the appellant has been
acquitted and in some cases, he is on bail. He further submitted
that the Taxi Driver of the deceased (P.W.1) has not implicated
the appellant Babulu and before his examination, he has not
claimed to have identified the unknown persons in his statement
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., rather he identified the
appellant Babulu for the first time in Court. Learned counsel
further submitted that P.W.2, who is the salesman of the liquor
shop of the informant (P.W.20) though put to T.I. parade, but in
Page 30 of 41
[ 31 ]
Court, he stated that on hearing the gun sound, he came out of
the shop and he further stated that the accused persons on
earlier occasion had purchased beer from the shop, and thus, he
had seen them prior to the occurrence. He further stated that
when he heard the sound of gunshot, he was inside the shop and
that the driver was sitting inside the Scorpio until he was called
by him. He further stated that the Magistrate did not ask the
name of the person (suspects) in his presence whom he
identified at the time of T.I. parade. Learned counsel further
submitted that P.W.3 stated that three persons came and killed
the deceased, but he is not a T.I. parade witness. Learned
counsel further submitted that though the prosecution has cited
P.W.4 as an eye witness, but he has not been put to T.I. parade
and he stated that he had no direct knowledge of the incident.
Learned counsel further submitted that though P.W.5 identified
the appellant Babulu, but he has not specifically implicated the
appellant Babulu as an assailant in the crime. Learned counsel
further submitted that P.W.6, who is a contractor, is not an
identifying witness, rather he claimed to have identified the five
accused persons including the appellants in Court. Learned
Senior Advocate almost adopted the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants Tulia @
Page 31 of 41
[ 32 ]
Nigamananda Jena and Suman Kumar Das and contended that in
view of the evidence adduced during trial, it is very difficult to
sustain conviction of the appellant and that he has a good
chances of success in the appeal and therefore, the bail
application may be favourably considered.
9. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Aurobinda
Mohanty, ASC and Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, Advocate appearing for the
informant opposed the prayer for bail of all the appellants and
contended that in view of the evidence adduced during trial
against the appellants and more particularly, in view of the
criminal antecedents, the appellants should not be released on
bail.
10. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, let us first discuss the scope of
granting bail to the appellant in a conviction case, which is a
matter of judicial discretion exercised by the appellate Court
under section 389 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to 430 of B.N.S.S.
Bail is not an automatic right after conviction, and normal
presumption of innocence is replaced by the presumption of
guilt. The appellate Court exercises its discretion based on
various factors, with the burden of proof generally shifting to the
Page 32 of 41
[ 33 ]
convicted person to show sufficient grounds for release. The
seriousness of the crime is a prime condition. The scope of bail
post-conviction is narrower than pre-trial bail, requiring
compelling reasons and a careful balance between the
individual's liberty and the interest of justice and public safety.
The Court must record its reasons in writing and the discretion
must be exercised judiciously, not as a matter of routine.
11. In the case of Preet Pal Singh -Vrs.- State of U.P.
reported in (2020) 8 Supreme Court Cases 645, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:
"36. There is a difference between grant of bail
Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in case of pre-trial arrest and
suspension of sentence Under Section 389 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and grant of bail,
post conviction. In the earlier case there may be
presumption of innocence, which is a
fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence,
and the courts may be liberal, depending on the
facts and circumstances of the case, on the
principle that bail is the Rule and jail is an
exception, as held by this Court in Dataram
Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.: (2018) 3
Supreme Court Cases 22. However, in case of
post conviction bail, by suspension of operation
Page 33 of 41
[ 34 ]
of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and
the question of presumption of innocence does
not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the
Rule and jail an exception attracted, once there
is conviction upon trial. Rather, the Court
considering an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the
prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with
other factors. There should be strong compelling
reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an
order of conviction, by suspension of sentence,
and this strong and compelling reason must be
recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated
in Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure."
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Bihar -Vrs.- Dhananjay Mishra in the Criminal
Appeals which arise out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.13665, 13666, 13671,
13672 and 13862 of 2025 disposed of on 12.12.2025, has been
pleased to observe that criminal antecedents constitute a vital
and determinative factor which ought not to be ignored while
considering an application for grant of bail, as they reflect the
conduct, character and behavioural pattern of the accused and
bear directly upon the likelihood of misuse of liberty. It was
further held that apparent omission on the part of the High Court
in felling to advert to the antecedent of the accused
Page 34 of 41
[ 35 ]
demonstrates a non-application of mind to a germane and
determinative consideration, thereby rendering the exercise of
discretion manifestly arbitrary. It was further held that the
impugned orders, having been passed without balancing the
liberty of the accused against the interest of society and
administration of criminal justice, stand vitiated in law.
Law is well settled that the Appellate Court can
adjudicate the bail application on the basis of evidence adduced
during trial and also keeping in view the nature of accusations
against the appellant, the manner in which the crime has been
committed, the gravity of the offence and the desirability of
releasing the appellant on bail. If there are good chances of
success in the appeal on the basis of the evidence adduced
during trial and there is no reasonable prospect of early hearing
of the appeal in the near future, the same can also be taken into
account. If the appellant has not misutilized the liberty granted
to him during the pendency of the trial and there is no chance of
absconding of the appellant and there is absence of any criminal
antecedents against the appellant, those aspects are certainly
plus points in favour of the appellant and the same can also be
taken into account while adjudicating the bail application.
However, a detailed documentation on the merits of the appeal
Page 35 of 41
[ 36 ]
by making threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced during
trial should be avoided at the stage of consideration of the bail
application inasmuch as that would have an adverse effect on
the final adjudication of the Criminal Appeal.
In the case of Kishori Lal -Vrs.- Rupa and others
reported in (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 638, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court outlined the factors that require to be taken
judicial notice while dealing with section 389 Cr.P.C. in cases
involving serious offences like murder etc. and therein it has
been held and observed that the appellate Court is duty bound to
objectively assess and record reasons for the conclusion that the
case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of
bail to the convict. It is also held therein that mere fact that
during the trial, the convicts were granted bail and there was no
allegation of misuse of liberty by them is really not of much
significance, since the effect of bail granted during trial becomes
irrelevant on its completion and after the accused persons are
found guilty, hence, such a plea does not per se warrant
suspension of execution of sentence and what really the matters
is, whether, reasons do really exist to suspend its execution.
Similarly, in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @
Manu Sharma -Vrs.- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
Page 36 of 41
[ 37 ]
(2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 230 infamously known as
Jessica Lal murder case, the Apex Court had the occasion to
consider and discuss earlier judicial pronouncements and held
that observations on merit one way or the other are likely to
prejudice the parties in appeal, hence, not to consider the
correctness or otherwise of the evidence on record but at the
same time, it cannot be overlooked that the accused having been
found guilty and convicted by a competent criminal court, initial
presumption of innocence in his favour is no more available.
In the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai &
others -Vrs.- State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 4
Supreme Court Cases 421, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that suspension of sentence can be considered by the
Appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional
circumstances but if for any reason, the sentence of a limited
duration cannot be suspended, every endeavour should be made
to dispose of the appeal on merit, otherwise, the valuable right
of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time and
when the Appellate Court finds that due to practical reasons, the
appeal cannot be disposed of expeditiously, it must bestow
special concern in the matter of suspending sentence so as to
make such right of appeal meaningful and effective.
Page 37 of 41
[ 38 ]
It is concluded in the case of Ash Mohammad
-Vrs.- Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & another reported in
(2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 446 that a question should be
posed, whether, the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or
not and only thereafter, issue of imposing conditions would arise
and the period of custody is a relevant factor, while considering
the same but simultaneously, the totality of circumstances and
the criminal antecedent are also to be weighed in the scale of
collective cry and desire.
In the case of Omprakash Sahni -Vrs.- Jai
Shankar Chaudhary and others reported in (2023) 6
Supreme Court Cases 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering the suspension of execution of sentence under
Section 389 Cr.P.C., as it was allowed by the Patna High Court,
concluded that the endeavour on the part of the Court should be
to ensure as to whether the case presented by the prosecution
and accepted by the trial Court can be said to a case in which
ultimately the convict stands for fair chance of acquittal and
while undertaking the exercise to ascertain the same, what is to
be looked into is something palpable and very apparent on the
face of the record, on the basis of which, it can arrive at a prima
facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be legally
Page 38 of 41
[ 39 ]
sustainable but with a word of caution that the Appellate Court
should not re-appreciate the evidence at that stage and try to
pick up few lacunas or loopholes randomly from the case of the
prosecution as it is not a correct approach and ultimately held
that the execution of sentence suspended was not justified.
12. Keeping in view the scope of granting bail to the
appellants as discussed above, we find that the learned trial
Court in the impugned judgment after discussing the evidence of
the doctor conducting autopsy and giving opinion that the cause
of death of the deceased was due to shock resulting from
haemorrhage as a result of injuries to the head, chest and
abdomen, which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death and that all the
gunshot injuries were possible by bullet injuries, came to hold
that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The
learned trial Court also discussed the evidence of the each of the
prosecution witnesses, the ballistic report, the T.I. parade
identification of some of the appellants as well as the
identification in Court, the recovery of weapon of offence and
particularly considering the evidence of the eye witnesses, came
to hold that the prosecution has successfully established the
offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. The criminal conspiracy
Page 39 of 41
[ 40 ]
part was also discussed and it was found to have been
successfully established by the prosecution. Similarly, the
possession of the fire arms by the appellants was also discussed
and the learned trial Court has found that the prosecution has
successfully established the charges under the Arms Act.
13. Though the learned counsel for the appellants raised
various contentions as to why the testimonies of the eye
witnesses should not be believed so also the criminal conspiracy,
however, if such arguments are dealt with in detail at this stage,
we are of the humble view that the same is likely to have some
effect on the merits of the appeals and it would ultimately
prejudice the appellants. Therefore, we do not propose too much
of discussions and elaboration on the points agitated while
considering the plea of suspension of sentence pending appeal.
If an exercise is made for detailed examination of the evidence
touching upon the merits of the case, it would not be proper and
justified.
In the case in hand, keeping in view the nature and
gravity of the crime, the nature of evidence adduced by the
prosecution during trial, the criminal proclivity of the appellants
to commit heinous crimes, we find no sufficient grounds for grant
Page 40 of 41
[ 41 ]
of bail to the appellants pending disposal of the appeal as the
same would not be in the interest of justice.
14. Accordingly, all the interim applications i.e. I.A. Nos.
926 of 2023, 1366 of 2023, 2097 of 2023 and 2508 of 2023 in
CRLA Nos.423 of 2023, 629 of 2023, 758 of 2023 and 1141 of
2023 respectively filed by the appellants stand rejected.
The appellants Tulia @ Nigamananda Jena and
Babulu @ Nihar Ranjan Das @ Patnaik, who are on bail, shall
surrender before the learned trial Court forthwith, failing which,
the learned trial Court shall take coercive steps for their arrest
and after their arrest, commit them to judicial custody.
However, taking into account the period of detention
of the appellants in judicial custody, if any applications are filed
by the appellants for expeditious hearing of the Criminal Appeals,
the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
..............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
S. S. Mishra, J. I agree.
...............................
S. S. Mishra, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 24 December, 2025/PKSahoo
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 24-Dec-2025 14:19:11
