[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Raj Dalabehera vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 7 April, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
            BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026
   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of
   BNSS).

   Raj Dalabehera                         ...      Petitioners
   (In BLAPL No.733 of 2026)
   Geda Balia @ Balaram Routray
   (In BLAPL No. 2704 of 2026)
                        -versus-
   State of Odisha                        ...   Opposite Party

   For Petitioners           : Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate
                               (In BLAPL No.733 of 2026)
                               Mr. K.C. Sarangi, Advocate
                               (In BLAPL No.2704 of 2026)

   For Opposite Party        : Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP

                           CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:07.04.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since these two 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. 24 of 2024 arising out of Khurda Model PS Case

BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026 No. 351 of 2023 pending in the file of learned 2nd Addl.

Sessions Judge, Khurda for commission of offences

punishable U/Ss. 294/302/307/506/120-B/34 of IPC r/w

Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, on the main allegation of

committing murder of one Somanath Bhujabala @ Paku by

firing at him from pistols, along with co-accused persons

after hatching a criminal conspiracy.

3. Heard Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, learned counsel

for the petitioner in BLAPL No.733 of 2026; Mr. Kedar

Chandra Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner in

BLAPL No.2704 of 2026 and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned

Addl. PP in these two matters and perused the record

together with copy of depositions of PWs.1-21 as

supplied.

4. After having considered the rival submission

upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against

the petitioners for committing murder of the deceased by

firing at him, along with co-accused persons after

hatching a criminal conspiracy, but bail is mainly sought

for to the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera for witnesses so far

BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026 examined not taking his name in their evidence, however,

the bail application of the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera was

earlier rejected by this Court in BLAPL No.2937 of 2024

for having serious criminal antecedents which was never

denied by the petitioner as stated by him in paragraph

no.5 of his bail application. It is, however, not in dispute

that the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera is allegedly having 18

criminal antecedents, but he has not disclosed the details

of his criminal antecedents in his bail application, which is

a material suppression. In this regard this Court is

fortified with the decision in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State

of Rajasthan; 2025 INSC 871, wherein the Apex Court

has held the following in paragraphs-22 and 23: -

"22. Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as below:

"5. Bail applications. - In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme

BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026 Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information."

23. We feel that every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a similar provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered."

5. Further, the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera is

implicated in this case with the aid of Sec.120(B) of IPC,

but such allegation can be appreciated after examination

of all the material witnesses, however, only 21 charge-

sheeted witnesses have been examined till today and

there are other material witnesses yet to be examined.

The criminal antecedents as shown against the petitioner

for 18 criminal cases is not a simple thing and cannot be

brushed aside in view of the decision of the Apex Court in

Ash Mohammad Vrs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu

BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026 and another; (2012) 9 SCC 446, wherein at

paragraph-30 it has been held as under: -

"30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused.

5.1. In Neeru Yadav vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh

& another; (2014) 16 SCC 508, the Apex Court in

Paragraph-17 has held as follows:-

"17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the 2nd

BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026 respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinize every aspect and not capriciously record that the 2nd respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order clearly exposes the non- application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the 2nd respondent has been charge sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside."

6. On a careful scrutiny of the materials placed on

record, it is not disputed that the deceased Somnath

Bhujabala @ Pakku had been shot at and he subsequently

died while being undergoing treatment and the autopsy

conducting doctor has found Puncture lacerated wound on

the abdominal cavity of the deceased and he further

opined that extra injury no.II is consistent with entry

wound of fire arm projectile. Besides, the name of the

petitioner-Geda Balia @ Balaram Routray has been

uttered by the witnesses in their evidence; nevertheless

he was allegedly identified by PW.15 in the TI parade. In

BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026 view of the aforesaid facts together with the rulings of the