Bikram Mallik @ Mallick vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 459 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 459 Ori
Judgement Date : 12 May, 2025

Orissa High Court

Bikram Mallik @ Mallick vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 12 May, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                BLAPL No.10070 of 2024

  (In the matter of an application Under Section 439 of
  CrPC, 1973)

   Bikram Mallik @ Mallick             ....            Petitioner

                              -versus-
   State of Odisha                   ....        Opposite Party


   For Petitioner         :        Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate

   For Opposite Party     :                 Mr. M.K. Mohanty,
                                                     Advocate


       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:12.05.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.439 of CrPC by

the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with

Badagada P.S. Case No.05 of 2011 corresponding

to S.T. Case No.176 of 2024 (G.R. Case No. 07 of

2011) pending in the file of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam, for

commission of offences punishable U/Ss.120-B/

121/121-A/124-A/435/427 of IPC r/w. Sections

10/13/16/18-A/20/39/40 of UAP Act and Section

17 of Crl.L.A. Act, on the main allegation of

burning the Hitachi machine bearing No.EX70

engaged for construction work along with co-

accused persons.

2. Heard, Mr. Prasanta Kumar Jena, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Mohanty,

learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and

perused the record.

3. It is not in dispute that the FIR has been

lodged against unknown persons, but it is,

however, stated by the learned State Counsel that

the petitioner is having a number of criminal

antecedents and he belongs to maoist

organization, but the learned Addl. PP could not

dispute about grant of bail to co-accused persons

in this case. Law is fairly well settled that merely

because a person is having some criminal

antecedents, he cannot be detained in custody for

an indefinite period, unless a prima facie case is

made out against him and in case, there is no

prima facie case for any offence, the petitioner still

can be directed to be released on bail even he is

having some criminal antecedents, which flows

from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. In view of the above facts and after

having considered the rival submissions and on

going through the materials placed on record and

regard being had to the mode, manner and

circumstance of implication of the present

petitioner in this case and taking into account the

other circumstances on record in entirety including

the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody

since 09.07.2024 and his conduct in surrendering

to the Court and keeping in view grant of bail to

co-accused persons including accused Siladatya

Singh in BLAPL No. 1955 of 2021 & Abello

Gamango in BLAPL No.1456 of 2021, this Court

without expressing any view on merits, admits the

petitioner to bail.

5. 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 with following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail,

ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS,2023 in accordance with law and

(iii) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday in each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six

(06) months from the actual date of release from the custody.

The IIC of Jurisdictional Police Station

shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after

recording his attendance beyond the time as

stipulated.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the

case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the

petitioner without further reference to this Court, if

any of the above conditions are violated or a case

for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In

the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent

involvement of the petitioner in future for any

grave/similar offence on prima facie accusations