Orissa High Court
Samira Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 22 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.9219 of 2025
Samira Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
M/s. Bijaya Kumar
Behera, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,
A.G.A.
BLAPL No.9241 of 2025
Jyotiprakash Biswal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. P.K. Parhi, Adv. along
with Mr. P.K. Mishra,
Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,
A.G.A.
BLAPL No.9242 of 2025
Subhra Sambit Nayak ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. P.K. Parhi, Adv. along
with Mr.B.Parhi &
Mr.S.Suman
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,
A.G.A.
Page 1 of 22.
BLAPL No.9739 of 2025
Dillip Kumar Ghose ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior
Advocate along with
Mr.A.Ray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,
A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
22.10.2025
Order No.
02. 1. The abovenoted bail applications have been preferred by the
Petitioners who have been implicated as an accused in
Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No.229 dt.12.07.2025 which corresponds
to C.T. Case No.498 of 2025 pending in the file of learned
S.D.J.M., Balasore for alleged commission of an offence
punishable under Sections 75(1)(ii), 78(2), 79, 351(2), 108, 3 (5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Since the factual
background in all the four bail applications are identical and arise
out of a single F.I.R. registered at Sahadevkhunta P.S., Balasore,
the same were clubbed together, heard analogously and is being
disposed of by the following common order.
2. Heard Sri B.K. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner in
BLAPL No.9219 of 2025, Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel for the
Petitioners in BLAPL No.9241 of 2025 and BLAPL No.9242 of
2025, Sri D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in
BLAPL No.9739 of 2025 as well as Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,
learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State-
Opposite Party. Perused the case diary as well as other materials
placed before this Court for consideration at the time of hearing of
the bail applications.
3. The common factual background arising out of
Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No.229 of 2025 leading to filing of the
abovenoted four bail applications at the instance of different
accused persons, as culled out from the F.I.R. story, in short, is that
one Arijit Dey, who happens to be the cousin brother of the victim,
lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R.) before the I.I.C.,
Sahadevkhunta P.S., Balasore inter alia alleging that his cousin
sister, who is aged about 20 years, was a student of Fakir Mohan
Autonomous College, Balasore and she was prosecuting her studies
in the subject of Integrated B.A. with English honours and was a
student of +3 2nd year of the abovenoted college. It has been
specifically alleged in the F.I.R. that the Assistant Professor and
Head of the Department of Teachers Education, namely, Shri
Samira Kumar Sahoo was demanding sexual favour from the
victim. Since the victim did not agree to the proposal of the
abovenamed Assistant Professor, she was subjected to various kind
mental harassment and torture. Although a written complaint was
lodged by the victim before the Principal of the College, namely,
Dillip Kumar Ghose, however, the same did not yield the desired
result and no steps whatsoever were taken by the college authorities
including the principal of the college. On the contrary, she was also
subjected to mental harassment by the principal and the college
authorities. No action was taken against the above-named accused-
Samira Kumar Sahoo. Rather, the victim was cautioned to listen to
the above-named accused-Assistant Professor, failing which she
was threatened to be thrown out of the college. She was also
threatened of being failed in the examination, which would then
doom her future.
While the matter stood thus, on 12.07.2025 at about 12.00
P.M to 12.30 P.M, the victim was summoned by the above-named
accused-Samira Kumar Sahoo to the office and she was compelled
to beg apology and was asked to withdraw the complaint she has
lodged against the accused-Assistant Professor, namely, Samira
Kumar Sahoo. She was further threatened that if she fails to act in
the manner as has been directed by the accused Assistant Professor
she will be subjected to physical as well as mental harassment
which would eventually defame her and she will be compelled to
commit suicide. In the F.I.R the allegation made by the informant is
against the Principal and the above-named accused-Samira Kumar
Sahoo. As a result of aforesaid harassment, the victim tried to
commit suicide. It has also been alleged that the principal of the
college as well as the accused-Assistant Professor are squarely
responsible for the victim taking such drastic step. At the time of
the lodging of the F.I.R, the victim was undergoing treatment at
AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. Consequently, the victim succumbed to her
injuries. After registration of the F.I.R, the I.O started the
investigation.
4. Consequent upon registration of the F.I.R and
commencement of the investigation, two accused persons who have
been named in the F.I.R, namely, Samira Kumar Sahoo and Dillip
Kumar Ghose along with the present Petitioners were arrested in
connection with the present case. Although the named accused
persons moved bail applications before the learned trial court, the
same appears to have been rejected by the learned trial court as the
investigation was in progress. Moreover, a ground was taken in the
bail applications by the named accused persons that the arrest of the
named accused persons is bad in law as they were not informed of
the grounds of arrest in the arrest memo. On a close scrutiny of the
arrest memo, the learned trial court has arrived at a finding that the
accused persons have indeed been informed about the grounds of
arrest as is required under the law and, as such, the learned trial
court has opined that the mandatory procedure of B.N.S.S has been
duly followed in the present case while arresting the accused
persons and forwarding them to the custody. Such order of the
learned trial court rejecting the bail applications of the named
accused persons has also been confirmed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Balasore.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, namely, Samira
Kumar Sahoo in BLAPL No.9219 of 2025 pleaded before this
Court that the F.I.R story clearly reveals that the victim committed
suicide by pouring petrol on her body and afterwards although she
was shifted to the hospital for the treatment, however despite the
best efforts of the doctors, the victim succumbed to the injury on
14.07.2025 at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. It has also been stated that the
Petitioner has no nexus with the suicide committed by the victim
and that the Petitioner has not played any role at all in the alleged
crime. It has also been alleged that the deceased is an active
member of an organisation affiliated to a political party and that she
had contested for the post of President in the college election. Since
there were some disputes and differences regarding the same, it
eventually led to the unfortunate incident in which the Petitioner
had no role at all. It has also been stated that the investigation has
been handed over to the Crime Branch and that the same has
progressed substantially. So far, no incriminating material has been
collected by the Investigating Agency during such investigation
which would conclusively establish the involvement of the present
Petitioner in the alleged crime. It has also been alleged that the
rejection of the Petitioner's bail application by the learned SDJM,
Balasore initially, thereafter, by the learned Sessions Judge,
Balasore is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
further submitted that the Petitioner is a government servant and
permanent resident of Balasore district and that since the
investigation is nearing completion, further keeping in view the fact
that there is no chance of absconding, the Petitioner be enlarged on
bail.
6. Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel representing the
accused Dillip Kumar Ghose, who was the Principal of F.M
Autonomous College at the relevant point of time. Learned Senior
Counsel at the outset contended that on 30.06.2025, the victim
reported the incident of mental torture by accused-Samira Kumar
Sahoo to Dillip Kumar Ghose, who was the Principal of the
college. On 01.07.2025, 50 to 60 students of the college gheraoed
the Petitioner and demanded an inquiry into the allegations of the
victim. Basing on such incident, the Petitioner had directed for
constitution of an Internal Complaint Committee (in short "ICC")
and to submit a report within 15 days by his order dated
27.05.2023. The ICC submitted its report on 09.07.2025 to the
Petitioner. Thereafter, on 12.07.2025 the victim approached Dillip
Kumar Ghose to enquire about the report of the committee and she
was informed that there were no finding of sexual harassment by
the HOD as alleged in the complaint. On the very same day, the
victim poured petrol over her body and set herself on fire outside
the accused-Principal's chamber in her attempt to commit suicide.
Though the Petitioner was arrested on 14.07.2025, it is argued by
Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was not informed of the grounds of arrest which is
contrary to the settled legal position. He further submitted that
although the Petitioner moved a bail application before the learned
SDJM, Balasore, thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore.
However, both the courts have failed to appreciate the law
enshrined in Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023. Further, the
learned trial courts have also lost sight of an important provision
like Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India.
In course of his argument, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner laid emphasis on non-compliance of the statutory
requirement as provided in Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023
and as mandated under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
Inasmuch as, the grounds of arrest of the Petitioner were not
furnished to the Petitioner at the time of arrest. As such, it was
alleged that the further detention of the Petitioner in custody
pursuant to an illegal arrest memo, which is contrary to the
provisions of law as well as the constitution, is unsustainable in law
and that the arrest of the Petitioner is completely illegal and
arbitrary. While emphasizing the communication of the grounds of
arrest as required under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and
Article 22 of the Constitution, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner alleged serious infringement of Petitioner's fundamental
right and, as such, the very detention of the Petitioner in custody
was questioned on the ground that such detention is invalid in law.
Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, referring to various
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, laid stress on the ground
that the requirement of informing the person of his grounds of
arrest is not a mere formality, but a mandatory requirement under
the constitutional principles as included in Article 22 of Part-III of
the Constitution of India.
In course of his argument, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner argued that the forwarding report dated
03.08.2025 of the co-accused, Subhra Sambit Nayak, would reveal
that the victim was in constant touch with him before the incident
and that she has been instructed by him to pour petrol on herself. It
was also alleged that on the date of occurrence i.e. 12.07.2025,
before approaching the Principal, the victim had also procured
petrol from the nearby petrol pump as instructed by the co-accused,
Subhra Sambit Nayak. He further explained the steps taken by the
accused-Principal of the college, i.e. counselling the victim and
constitution of the committee to ascertain the veracity of the
allegation, have been taken within the framework of law by the
accused-Principal. As such, it was argued that no fault can be found
with the conduct of the accused-Principal who is an innocent
person and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. On
such ground, learned Senior Counsel urged before this Court that
the Petitioner be released on bail on any stringent terms and
conditions deemed fit by this Court.
7. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel appearing for the accused-
Subhra Sambit Nayak (in BLAPL No.9242 of 2025) pleaded before
this Court that the Petitioner was initially not named in the F.I.R.
On the basis of such fact, it was argued that the petitioner had
neither any involvement in the alleged crime nor any specific role
has been ascribed to him at the instance of the informant. He
further submitted that in course of investigation, the Petitioner was
arrested on 03.08.2025 and he has forwarded to jail custody. His
bail application having been rejected by the learned SDJM,
Balaosre as well as learned Sessions Judge, Balaosre, the Petitioner
has approached this Court by filing the present bail application. In
course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that there is no incriminating material collected during
investigation to establish the involvement of the present Petitioner
in the alleged crime. It has also been stated that the Petitioner is a
former student of F.M Autonomous college and was a member of
the Student Union along with the deceased. He further clarified that
both the Petitioner and the deceased were part of the Student
Union, the deceased being junior to the Petitioner. He further
submitted that as the deceased was being harassed by the college
authority, she had earlier complained before the Petitioner. He
further submitted that the Petitioner, being a member of the college
student union, had participated in the protest against the accused-
Samira Kumar Sahoo, who had mentally harassed the victim and
had asked for sexual favour from the victim. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner is a student and
that he had no role in the alleged crime other than participating in
the protest against the accused-HOD. With regard to the telephonic
conversation between the two, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that they both belong to the student organisation i.e.
ABVP, therefore, they had a cordial relationship and were
communicating with each other over phone. Thus, it was submitted
on behalf of the Petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid phone
conversation, it cannot be construed that the Petitioner had any role
in the alleged crime and it cannot be said that the Petitioner had
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that
the Petitioner, who is a young boy, aged about 22 years and has just
completed +3 Science with Physics honours and has applied for
admission into Post Graduate Course. He further submitted that the
Petitioner is preparing for Civil Services examination and unless he
is released on bail, his career is likely to be doomed. It was also
emphasised that the investigation which has progressed
substantially does not require the custodial interrogation of the
Petitioner and that there is neither any risk of him tampering with
the evidence, or fleeing away from justice as he is a permanent
resident of Bhadrak district.
8. Heard Mr.P.K. Parhi, learned counsel appearing for accused-
Jyotiprakash Biswal. At the outset, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has not been named in the
F.I.R and that no specific allegation has been made as against the
present Petitioner. He further submitted in course of investigation,
the Petitioner was arrested and detained in judicial custody since
03.08.2025 for no valid reason. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
strongly objected to the rejection of his bail application by the
learned SDJM, Balasore as well as the learned Sessions Judge,
Balasore. Challenging such illegal rejection of the bail application,
the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present bail
application. The grounds taken in the present bail application are
somewhat identical to the one taken by the Petitioner in BLAPL
No.9242 of 2025. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
submitted that the main ground of rejection of Petitioner's bail
application by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore is that the
Petitioner was found to be making a video of the girl during her
self-immolation. The aforesaid fact was seriously disputed by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner. He further submitted that the
aforesaid fact can only be gone into at the time of trial once the
evidence is led and that the same cannot be a ground to reject the
bail application. Further, referring to the statement of the witnesses
recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that such statement of the witnesses nowhere
mention that the Petitioner has in any manner instigated or
provoked the deceased to take such extreme step or to set fire onto
herself. He further emphatically argued that the present petitioner in
fact had tried to save the deceased. As such, it cannot be presumed
that he had instigated the deceased for taking such an extreme step.
Moreover, there is no such material coming forth from the side of
the prosecution with regard to the allegation made against the
present Petitioner. He further submitted that the deceased and the
Petitioner belonged to the same student organisation and that the
present Petitioner was only a follower of the deceased who was
aspiring to contest for the post of President of the College Union.
Finally, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is
not an iota of evidence whatsoever against the present Petitioner.
Thus, the allegation against the present Petitioner is stated to be an
abstract imagination of the police and that the same is neither
supported by any oral testimony nor based on any record. Finally,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is
aged about 18 years and is continuing his studies. Unless the
Petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to suffer irreparable
mental agony and harassment.
9. Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Additional Government
Advocate at the outset supported the rejection of the Petitioners'
bail applications passed by the learned SDJM, Balasore and,
thereafter, by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore. He further
contended that such rejection orders do not call for any interference
by this Court especially considering the gravity and magnitude of
the crime that has been alleged in the F.I.R. Learned Additional
Government Advocate in course of his argument, stated before this
Court accused-Samira Kumar Sahoo and accused-Dillip Kumar
Ghose have been specifically named in the F.I.R and there are
materials against them which has led to the victim committing
suicide. He further submitted that the present case has shocked the
conscience of the society and it has also created law and order
problem in the locality. He further contended that considering the
gravity and seriousness of the allegation and the magnitude of the
crime, the investigation has been handed over to the Crime Branch.
Since the Crime Branch is investigating into the matter, the release
of the Petitioners at this juncture would have an adverse impact on
the investigation. He further submitted that considering the nature
of the allegation, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners
would be highly required. In course of his argument, learned
Additional Government Advocate also cited the severity of the
punishment that is likely to be inflicted in the event the Petitioners
are found guilty of the offences alleged. It was also brought to the
notice of the Court that since the incident has created an uproar in
the State of Odisha and the entire society is disturbed, the release of
the Petitioners at this stage would shake the faith of the public in
the entire system of judiciary. Finally, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State submitted that in view of the
materials collected so far during the investigation, a clear case is
made out against the present Petitioners and awaiting the final
charge sheet, the bail applications of the Petitioners be rejected at
this stage.
10. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present
case and on meticulous consideration of the submissions made by
learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court at
the outset would like to observe that the alleged crime in the
present case is one of the most shocking incidents that have taken
place in the recent past. Such incident has shocked the conscience
of the people of the State of Odisha. The F.I.R allegation reveals
that the victim who was a student of F.M Autonomous College,
Balasore committed self-immolation by pouring petrol over her
body. Although she was later shifted to the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar
for treatment, however, during such treatment the victim
unfortunately succumbed to her injuries. It is not very difficult to
understand the genesis of the thought-process which led to such a
drastic step being taken by a young girl student; it is out an out the
hierarchy of the college administration and that inaction towards
the harassment complained by the victim. This Court further
observes here that although several laws have been enacted and
several steps have been taken by the judiciary as well as the
administrative machineries to prevent such kind of occurrences.
However, this Court painstakingly notes here that all such steps
have gone in vain and that the society has collectively failed to save
the life of a young girl. The inaction of the college authorities
would be the sole reason for the deceased taking such an extreme
step. Since the case is still under investigation by the Crime
Branch, this Court prefers to refrain from making any further
observation as the same might eventually affect a free and fair
investigation as well as trial. Having said that, this Court is also
aware of legal formalities to be followed while considering the bail
application of the accused-Petitioners.
11. As has been stated earlier, since all the four bail applications
arise out of a common F.I.R involving a solidary incident, all these
bail applications were taken up together for consideration by this
Court. So far accused-Samira Kumar Sahoo, the Petitioner in
BLAPL No.9219 of 2025 and Dillip Kumar Ghose, the Petitioner in
BLAPL No.9739 of 2025 are concerned, they have been
specifically named in the F.I.R by the informant. There are also
direct allegations against them with regard to the harassment
caused by accused-Samira Kumar Sahoo and inaction on the part of
the accused-Dillip Kumar Ghose as Principal and Head of the
Institution. Therefore, their role in the alleged crime is required to
be investigated during investigation. Since no final charge sheet has
been filed, it would not be fair on the part of this Court to enlarge
them on bail at this juncture. However, since a ground has been
raised by Mr.Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the
Petitioner with regard to compliance of the statutory provision
contained in Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Article
22 of the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to examine the
aforesaid point only in respect of named accused-Samira Kumar
Sahoo and Dillip Kumar Ghose. The provisions contained in
Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 is a reflection of the
provision enshrined in Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India,
i.e. the accused must be informed of the grounds of arrest at the
time of his arrest by the Arresting Officer. Since an allegation has
been made with regard to violation of such right, this Court
examines the arrest memo of the abovenamed two accused persons.
On perusal of the Arrest Memo it appears that at Sl. No.1, the name
and address of the accused has been clearly mentioned. At Sl. No.5,
the F.I.R details like the F.I.R Number and the offences alleged
have also been clearly mentioned. At Sl. No.10 under the heading
"Reasons/ Grounds of Arrest", it has been clearly mentioned as
prima facie evidence under Sections 75(1)(ii), 78(2), 79, 351(2),
108, 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023. Moreover, several such paras in
different box of para-10 also indicates the reason for detention in
custody. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view
that the accused at the time of arrest has been informed of his
grounds of arrest which is in compliance of the provisions
contained in Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023. Thus, this Court
has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the learned SDJM,
Balasore as well as learned Sessions Judge, Balasore have not
committed any illegality in coming to a conclusion that the
statutory requirement of Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 as
well as the enshrined principle of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution
of India has been duly followed. Since, this Court finds no
infringement in compliance the aforesaid provision, the arrest/
detention in custody cannot be held to be arbitrary and, as such, the
Petitioners are not entitled to be set at liberty on such ground.
12. So far Subhra Sambit Nayak and Jyotiprakash Biswal,
Petitioners in BLAPL No.9242 of 2025 and BLAPL No.9241 of
2025 respectively are concerned, this Court on a careful
examination of the case diary found that while accused-Subhra
Sambit Nayak has passed out recently, accused-Jyotiprakash
Biswal is still continuing in the college as a student. Both the
Petitioners were not named in the F.I.R initially and that the
informant has not alleged any specific role which has been played
by these two petitioners in the alleged crime. They have been
implicated as an accused in this case at a subsequent stage of
investigation. So far accused-Subhra Sambit Nayak is concerned,
the allegation against him is that he was in a regular conversation
with the deceased prior to the occurrence and that the prosecution
believes that he might have instigated the victim to commit suicide.
Similarly, the allegation against the accused-Jyotiprakash Biswal is
that he is a student of the college and was present at the spot of
occurrence. While the deceased committed self-immolation by
pouring petrol on her body, the accused-Jyotiprakash Biswal
recorded the incident on his mobile phone. Taking into
consideration the nature of the allegation against both the
abovenamed Petitioners, further keeping in view their age and the
fact that they are students, that they belong to the locality and there
is no chance of them absconding, this Court is inclined to release
both the afore-mentionedPetitioners on bail conditionally.
13. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused-Subhra Sambit
Nayak, Petitioner in BLAPL No.9242 of 2025 and the accused-
Jyotiprakash Biswal, Petitioner in BLAPL No.9241 of 2025 be
released on bail subject to each one of them furnishing a bail bond
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two local solvent
sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in
seisin over the matter. The release of the abovenamed two
Petitioners shall be subject to such other terms and condition as
would be deemed just and proper by the court in seisin over the
matter. However, while directing the release of the Petitioners on
bail, this Court preserves the right of the prosecution to seek for
cancellation of their bail, in the event any incriminating material
comes against them during investigation.
14. So far the accused-Samira Kumar Sahoo, Petitioner in
BLAPL No.9219 of 2025 and accused-Dillip Kumar Ghose,
Petitioner in BLAPL No.9739 of 2025 are concerned, this Court is
not inclined to consider their bail applications as the investigation is
still in progress. While rejecting their bail applications at this stage,
this Court grants them a right to renew their prayers after filing of
the final charge-sheet by the Crime Branch.
15. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the abovenoted
Bail Applications stand disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 22-Oct-2025 17:50:02
