Orissa High Court
Satyawart Mishra @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 20 September, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 7374 of 2025
Satyawart Mishra @ .... Petitioner
Satyabrata Mishra
Ms. P. Rath, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
2. Victim
Mr. S.Panda, ASC
Mr. S. K. Dwivedy, Advocate
(Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
Order No. 20.09.2025
01. 1. Ms. P. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has
entered appearance on behalf of the Petitioner by
filing Vakalatnama. The same is taken on record.
2. Registry is requested to reflect the name of
Ms. P. Rath, learned Senior Counsel in the cause
list, brief as well as web portal of this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsels for the State as well as Informant.
4. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with T.R. Case No.76 of 2025 pending
on the file of learned Ld. Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Koraput, arising out of Sunabeda P.S. Case
No.115 of 2025 for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of BNS,
2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA)
Act.
5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
on behalf of the Petitioner that though initially the
FIR was instituted under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69
of BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST
(PoA) Act while filing the final form on 24.06.2025
which is taken on record, the investigating agency
have found the Petitioner's complicity under Section
69 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC &
ST (PoA) Act.
6. Referring to the nature of the allegations, it
is submitted with vehemence by the learned Senior
Counsel that the basic ingredient of the SC & ST of
the Special Act is not made out. Hence, this Court
can examine the veracity of the claim in the prayer
in a petition for pre-arrest bail.
7. It is trite that in the meanwhile the Apex
Court has held that there is no absolute embargo
for this Court to exercise jurisdiction of pre-arrest
bail, merely because there is an accusation under
the Special Act.
8. In this context reference can be gainfully
made to the cases of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vrs.
Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 as
well as Shajan Skariya vrs. State of Kerala and
another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2249.
9. Taking into account the factual matrix of the
case at hand and the materials on record, this
Court is of the prima facie view that in the light of
the judgment, the matter can be considered on
merits.
10. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner that ex facie it is a consensual
relationship between the two adults. It is submitted
that the very non-filing of the charge sheet under
Section 64 of BNS, 2023 prima facie lends credence
to the submission that it was a consensual
relationship and in this context the attention is
drawn to the materials on record, including the
statements.
11. Learned counsel for the State as well as
Informant oppose the prayer for pre-arrest bail.
12. Learned counsel for the State refers to the
183 statements in this regard and the learned
counsel for the informant submits that taking into
account the nature of allegations, the Petitioner
ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail.
13. On instructions of this Court, the Odia
translated version of the statement of the victim
has been placed on record. This Court perused the
same.
14. Considering the tenor thereof, this Court is
not inclined to entertain the application for pre-
arrest bail. However, in the event the Petitioner
surrenders before the learned Court in seisin in the
aforesaid case and moves an application for his
release on bail, the same shall be considered on its
own merit.
15. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Jina
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 22-Sep-2025 19:43:44
