Orissa High Court
Mr. B.K. Das vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 28 October, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.12858 & 12867 of 2024 &
118 & 120 of 2025
(In the matter of applications U/S.483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023).
Purna Chandra Nag and another
(In BLAPL No.12858 of 2024)
Biren @ Birendra Bag and another
(In BLAPL No.12867 of 2024)
Mahatab Kharsel
(In BLAPL No.118 of 2025)
Madan Jal
(In BLAPL No.120 of 2025) ... Petitioners
Mr. B.K. Das, Advocate
(for all the petitioners)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP
Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate (Informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:28.10.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these four bail applications arise out
of one and same case record, the same are heard
together and disposed of by this common order with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of
BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection
with ST Case No.64 of 2023,ST Case No.122 of 2023,
ST Case No.122 of 2023 & ST Case No.181 of 2023
corresponding to GR Case No.103-F of 2011, GR Case
No.103-H of 2011, GR Case No.103-H of 2011 & GR
Case No.103-I of 2011 respectively which arise out of
Titilagarh PS Case No.37 of 2011 pending in the Court
of learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, for commission
of offences punishable U/Ss.147/ 148/ 341/ 325/ 302/
436/ 114/ 120-B/ 149 of IPC r/w Section 7 of Criminal
Law Amendment Act, on the main allegation of rioting,
along with co-accused persons being armed with deadly
weapons by forming an unlawful assembly and
attacking the deceased and setting fire to the Bolero
vehicle in which the deceased was sitting by pouring
petrol and thereby, causing death of the deceased
Radhe Shyam Rai, the then DGM of Powmex Steel
Plant, Titilagarh.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Basanta
Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for all the
petitioners submits that out of 52 accused persons, 35
co-accused have faced the trial, but only one was found
convicted and that too, the said convict was admitted
to bail by this Court, which was confirmed in Apex
Court. It is further submitted that another co-accused
Basanta Kumar Sahoo, who has been granted bail by
this Court, but the order granting bail of such co-
accused has been unsuccessfully challenged by the
informant before the Apex Court. It is further submitted
by Mr. Das that the accused persons have faced the
trial and remained in custody for more than two years
and in the meantime, the vital witness namely Alok
Kumar Nayak having already been examined in the trial
has not substantially supported the prosecution
allegation against the petitioners and he was
accordingly found to have not been able to identify any
of the accused persons including co-accused Madan Jal
and Mahatab Kharsel, who are stated to be prime
accused in this case and, therefore, the petitioners
being the innocent persons and having detained in
custody for a substantial period, may kindly be granted
bail.
3.1. In opposing such prayer for bail, Mr. Avijit
Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Graphite India
Limited for whose behalf FIR was lodged in this case,
submits that not only the present accused persons have
been apprehended after substantial lapse of time of
more than 10 years, but also their implication is on the
basis of admissible evidence, which is palpable from the
evidence of eye witness Alok Kumar Nayak, who in the
course of his examination before the trial Court has
uttered the name of the accused Mahatab Kharsel to
have set fire to the Bolero vehicle resulting in death of
the deceased and the role played by the accused Madan
Jal in pelting stone to the face of the deceased and,
thereby, all the accused persons-cum-petitioners
having participated in the unlawful assembly to commit
murder of the deceased, they are squarely liable and
therefore, they should not be granted bail. Mr. Patnaik
further highlighting the issue and taking this Court
through the evidence of informant submits that the
informant has uttered the name of all the accused
persons who are present at the spot and the bail
granted to co-accused Basanta Kumar Sahoo having no
precedency value as held by the Apex Court in Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.55714 of 2024. Mr.
Patnaik further, submits that the Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal Nos.810-811 of 2021 having taken into account
the long abscondance of the petitioners against their
grant of bail and in the present case, the petitioners
having absconded for more than 10 years, should not
be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, Mr. Patnaik prays to
reject the bail application of the petitioners.
3.2. In supplementing the submission of Mr.
Patnaik, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, however, by relying upon the evidence of
the eye witness and informant submits that not only
the present petitioners have the crucial role in the
attack on the deceased, but also they were being found
by the eye witness to have set fire to the vehicle of the
deceased in which the deceased lost his life and the
petitioners having taken into custody after long years,
they should not be granted bail. Mr. Mishra accordingly
prays to reject the bail application of the petitioners.
4. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no
dispute about the petitioners being in custody for more
than two years and the examination of material witness
like the eye witness Alok Kumar Nayak. It is no doubt
true that abscondance of accused persons is certainly a
ground to refuse bail, but the same may not be a
ground when there is no substantive evidence against
any such persons and, even on such event, the
absconding accused can also be admitted to bail by
looking at the nature of allegation and the supporting
materials collected by the investigating agency. In this
case, there is absolutely no dispute about acquittal of
some of the co-accused persons with solitary conviction
of one accused namely Kumara Bag, who was
subsequently admitted to bail, but as per the
submission of the learned counsel for the informant
that he was admitted to bail after 14 years of
incarceration. It cannot be denied that an accused
person in law is presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty at the trial, but grant or refusal of bail is to be
regulated by the materials placed on record and the
alleged act of the accused persons and the severity of
the punishment as well as the nature and gravity of the
offences. In this case, the incident occurred in the year
2011, but the present accused persons are facing trial
since 2022, but trial is yet to be concluded.
5. In view of the above facts and
circumstances and taking into account the nature and
gravity of the offences as alleged against the
petitioners vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be
brought against them and regard being had to the
materials collected in support of the allegation together
with the evidence of material witnesses and there being
solitary conviction of one accused and taking into
account the other circumstances on record in entirety
including the detention period of the individual
petitioners and the role as alleged against them and the
vital witness like eye witness having already been
examined and, thereby, there being little apprehension
of tampering of evidence of material witnesses and on
going through the entire materials placed on record
including the evidence of eye witness, this Court while
not being inclined to grant bail to the petitioner
Mahatab Kharsel in BLAPL No.118 of 2025, however,
considers it proper to admit the petitioners-Purna
Chandra Nag and Antaram Bishi in BLAPL No.12858 of
2024; Biren @ Birendra Bag and Garuda @
Garudadhwaja Sahu in BLAPL No.12867 of 2024 and
Madan Jal in BLAPL No.120 of 2025 to bail, but subject
to certain terms and conditions.
6. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
Mahatab Kharsel in BLAPL No.118 of 2025 stands
rejected, whereas the prayer for bail of petitioners-
Purna Chandra Nag and Antaram Bishi in BLAPL
No.12858 of 2024; Biren @ Birendra Bag and Garuda @
Garudadhwaja Sahu in BLAPL No.12867 of 2024 and
Madan Jal in BLAPL No.120 of 2025 stands allowed.
Accordingly, the petitioners Purna Chandra Nag,
Antaram Bishi, Biren @ Birendra Bag, Garuda @
Garudadhwaja Sahu and Madan Jal are allowed to go
on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand) each with two solvent sureties 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 petitioners shall not commit any
offence while on bail,
(ii) the petitioners in the course of trial shall
attend the trial Court on each date of posting
without fail unless their attendance is
dispensed with. In case the Petitioners fail
without sufficient cause to appear in the
Court in accordance with the terms of
the bail, the learned trial Court may
proceed against the Petitioners for
offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in
accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the BLAPL Nos.12858 & 12867
of 2024 & BLAPL Nos.118 & 120 of 2025 stands
disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as
per Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Digitally Signed Dated the 28 day of October, 2025/Subhasmita
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases
