Orissa High Court
Niranjan Sahoo @ Babuni vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 13 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 4991 of 2024
Niranjan Sahoo @ Babuni .... Petitioner (s)
Mr. Biplab Kumar Dash, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 13.03.2025
10.
F.I.R. Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections
No. Courts' Name
0045 24.01.2024 G.R. Case No.73 Section 302
of 2024 arising of the I.P.C.
out of
Dhamnagar P.S.
Case No.45 of
2024 pending in
the court of the
learned J.M.F.C.,
Dhamnagar.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Dhamnagar P.S.
Case No.45 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 73 of 2024, pending
in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Dhamnagar and registered for the
alleged commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., has filed
this petition seeking for his release on bail.
Page 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
3. The facts, as disclosed in the First Information Report, reveal that on
January 24, 2024, at 9:56 A.M., the complainant, Sudarsan Parida,
approached Dhamnagar Police Station with a written report. He stated
that on January 4, 2024, he had admitted his younger brother, Kedar
Parida/ to the "Bastav Nisha Nibarana Center" for treatment. However/
on January 23, 2024, at approximately 5:00 P.M., he received a phone call
from the center informing him that his brother was unwell. Shortly
thereafter/ he was informed of his brother's demise. Distressed by this
news, the complainant, accompanied by other villagers, rushed to the
center, where they found Kedar Parida deceased. Based on their
observations and suspicions, they alleged that physical torture and
severe assault inflicted at the center had caused Kedar Parida's death,
leading to the initiation of these proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, serving
as a caretaker at the "Bastav Nisha Nibarana Kendra" has been falsely
implicated and has no connection with the alleged offense. It was
asserted that the center adhered to all requisite legal and technical
standards for the de-addiction treatment provided to the complainant's
brother. Counsel further highlighted that the post-mortem report
concluded that the deceased had succumbed to a "myocardial
infarction" negating allegations of foul play. The petitioner/ who has
been in custody since January 24, 2024, argues that with the charge sheet
already filed, there is no justification for his continued detention. On
these grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on bail.
Page 2 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
5. Learned counsel for the State, opposing the petitioner's plea for bail
with vigor, submitted that the mere filing of the charge sheet does not
constitute a material change in circumstances warranting such relief. It
was argued that the inquest report, FIR, post-mortem findings, seizure
lists, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.,
and other relevant materials on record unequivocally point to the
petitioner's unprofessional conduct as the caretaker of the center.
Counsel further contended that the injuries observed on the deceased's
body could have precipitated a myocardial infarction or heart attack due
to the severe pain inflicted. In light of these considerations, the State
urged the Court to reject the petitioner's bail application.
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before the Court.
7. The determination of whether a case warrants the grant of bail requires
a careful balancing of multiple factors, including the nature of the
offense, the severity of the prescribed punishment, and a prima facie
assessment of the accused's involvement. There exists no rigid or
inflexible formula for courts to apply when deciding bail applications;
rather, each case must be assessed on its own merits. At the stage of
considering bail, the court is not expected to conduct a detailed
evaluation of the evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt as that remains the domain of trial. However, the
court must examine whether prima facie or reasonable grounds exist to
believe that the accused has committed the offense and, upon weighing
Page 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
all relevant considerations, whether the continued custody of the
accused advances the interests of the criminal justice system.
8. Furthermore, when bail has been denied by a lower court, an appellate
court must exercise restraint in interfering with such an order and must
be guided by well established principles governing the power to set
aside bail.
9. The principles governing this Court's assessment of the correctness of
an order granting bail by the High Court were succinctly articulated in
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1. In that case, the accused
was facing trial for an offense punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. Despite multiple bail applications being dismissed
by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the High Court
subsequently allowed the bail application. In setting aside the order of
the High Court, the Supreme Court, delivering the judgment for a two-
judge Bench of the Court, expounded on the legal principles and held as
follows:
"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or
rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this
Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
1
(2010) 14 SCC 496.
Page 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail.
...
12. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to
these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail,
the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application
of mind, rendering it to be illegal..."
10. Likewise, such view was also resonated by the Supreme Court in the
case of Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 wherein it was held
as follows:
"While granting bail, the relevant considerations are: (i)
nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the
evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the
prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v)
likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not
exhaustive. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant
or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own
merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of
discretion by the Court."
1991 Supp (2) SCC 133.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
11. The abovementioned precedents make it amply clear that the grant of
bail in cases involving serious offenses such as Section 302 IPC requires
a judicious and cautious approach. The nature of the allegations, gravity
of the offense, severity of punishment, and prima facie involvement of
the accused must all be carefully weighed before granting such relief.
The courts must remain vigilant against any decision that may
inadvertently undermine the administration of justice or allow
interference with the investigation.
12. Rehabilitation centers are meant to be places of care and renewal, but
too often, they become sites of quiet suffering. Behind closed doors,
where patients seek refuge from addiction, there is sometimes neglect,
coercion, and even violence. The line between discipline and abuse
blurs. The vulnerable, already struggling with dependency, find
themselves subjected to harsh treatment under the guise of therapy.
Walls meant to protect instead confine, stripping them of dignity. What
should be a path to recovery instead becomes a place where silence
hides cruelty, and pain is mistaken for progress.
13. This case brings these concerns into sharp focus. The deceased was
admitted to Bastav Nisha Nibarana Kendra with the hope of reclaiming his
life but did not leave the facility alive. The allegations go beyond
negligence and suggest mistreatment. While the post mortem report
attributes the cause of death to a myocardial infarction, the presence of
multiple injuries cannot be ignored. The circumstances surrounding his
death raise serious concerns about the conditions within the center and
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
whether the treatment he received contributed to his suffering rather
than his recovery.
14. Given the seriousness of the offense, the prima facie involvement of the
Petitioner, and the stage of the proceedings, this Court finds no
justification for interfering with the order rejecting bail. Accordingly, the
present bail application stands dismissed.
15. Accordingly, this BLAPL stands dismissed.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi )
Judge
