[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Unknown vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 8 April, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
      BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of
   BNSS, 2023).

    Dibakar Behera
    (In BLAPL No.11377 of 2025)
    Sanjaya Behera
    (In BLAPL No.11998 of 2025)
    Manoj Behera
    (In BLAPL No.12000 of 2025)             ... Petitioners

                                    Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate
                               (in BLAPL No.11377 of 2025)
                                     Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate
                     (in BLAPL Nos.11998 & 12000 of 2025)
                            -versus-
    State of Odisha                     ...      Opposite Party
                                   Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP

                           CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:08.04.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. These are applications U/S.483 of the BNSS,

2023 by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection

with Purushottampur P.S. Case No.240 of 2025

corresponding to S.T. Case No. 216 of 2025 (G.R. Case

No. 238 of 2025) pending in the file of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Chatrapur/ JMFC, Purusottampur, being BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss.103(1)/189(2)/191(2)/ 61(2)/191(3)/190 of BNS

r/w. Sec.25/27 of Arms Act, on the main allegation of

committing murder of the deceased Sumanta Mahapatra,

along with co-accused persons by conjointly assaulting

him with deadly weapons in prosecution of their common

object by forming an unlawful assembly.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Janmejaya Katikia,

learned counsel for the petitioner-Dibakar Behera in

BLAPL No. 11377 of 2025 prays to grant bail to the

petitioner not only for non-compliance of the provisions of

Sec. 47 of BNSS/ Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India

for non-furnishing grounds of arrest to the petitioner-

Dibakar Behera, but also submits on merit to grant bail to

the petitioner on the ground that the deceased had not

whispered the name of the assailant, however, the

complainant/informant named the petitioner in the FIR,

although the same appears to be improbable because the

alleged occurrence took place in the night and there must

be darkness at the so called place of occurrence. Mr.

Katikia further submits that the FIR averments do not BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

disclose the time of the occurrence, but the petitioner and

others have been stated to have allegedly committed the

crime which is unbelievable, since the mode and manner

of implication of the petitioner is highly questionable. He

further submits that it was uncertain for seeing the

occurrence by the informant, who was present at a

distance from the alleged scene of occurrence, but the

informant has said to have seen the occurrence, which in

the circumstance is highly improbable and the police

being pressurized by the local political party has falsely

indicted the petitioner in this case and thereby, in such

scenario, keeping the petitioner in confinement would

curtail his personal liberty without any reasonable

ground. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Katkia prays

to grant bail to the petitioner.

2.1. On the other hand, Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Sanjaya

Behera and Manoj Behera in BLAPL Nos. 11998 & 12000

of 2025 submits that the name of these two petitioners

do not figure out in the FIR and they have been

implicated in this case subsequently by manufacturing the BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

statement of witnesses Balaram Behera, Rama Chandra

Lenka and Kumar Swain, which is highly unbelievable

because although the complainant knows the petitioners,

he has not named them in the FIR. Mr. Sahoo further

submits that the petitioners are in confinement since

long, but charge sheet has already been submitted in the

meantime and no adverse report is forthcoming against

the petitioners about pendency of any criminal case

against them and, therefore, in the circumstance, the

petitioners may kindly be granted bail.

2.2. In opposing the prayer for bail of the

petitioners, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP by taking

this Court through the materials placed on record,

submits that the petitioner-Dibakar Behera has not only

been named in the FIR, but also he is the main author of

the crime and he has got seven criminal antecedent to his

credit and he having been seen by the informant in killing

the deceased, his name has been clearly figured out in

the FIR and the other petitioners having been seen by the

eye witnesses for committing the crime, cannot be

considered at this stage to be innocent, rather the BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

petitioners being prima facie found involved in a

gruesome murder of the deceased, they don't deserve to

be released on bail. On the aforesaid submission, Mr.

Satpathy prays to reject the bail applications of the

petitioners.

3. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against

the petitioners and others for committing murder of the

deceased by conjointly assaulting him with sharp cutting

weapon in prosecution of their common object after

forming an unlawful assembly. Additionally, the name of

the petitioner-Dibakar Behera finds place in the FIR as

one of the assailants, but the other two petitioners have

allegedly been seen by the eye witnesses for committing

the crime along with others in prosecution of their

common object. A careful scrutiny of the materials placed

on record, the petitioner Dibakar Behera is found to have

the following criminal antecedents: -

1. Rambha PS Case No. 731, dated 22.10.2023, U/S. 147/148/302/326/307/149 IPC.

BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

2. Rambha PS Case No. 464, dated 07.08.2024, U/S.126(2)/76/115(2)/351(3)/3(5) BNS r/w. Sec.25(1)(a) Arms Act.

3. Purushottampur PS Case No.449, dated 05.07.2024, U/S. 296/351(3) BNS.

4. Purushottampur PS Case No.471, dated 16.07.2024 U/S.296/351(3)/3(5) BNS.

5. Purushottampur PS Case No.738, dated 04.11.2024, U/S. 126(2)/296/109/3(5) BNS r/w. Sec.25(1)(a)/27(1) Arms Act.

6. Purushottampur PS Case No.764, dated 13.11.2024, U/S.296/351(2)/3(5) BNS.

7. Purushottampur PS Case No.787, dated 26.11.2024 U/S. 296/351(2)/3(5) BNS.

4. In a criminal case, while considering the bail

application of an accused, the criminal antecedent of such

accused cannot be brushed aside and it is one of the

factors to be considered in adjudicating his bail

application. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the

decision of the Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vrs. Shiv

Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu 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

BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

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.

4.1. 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 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."

BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

5. Moreover, the IO in the charge sheet has stated

that there was enmity between the deceased and the

petitioner-Dibakar Behera and accordingly, two cases in

Purushottampur P.S. Case No.271 of 2024 and

Purushottampur P.S. Case No. 764 of 2024 have been

registered against the petitioner-Dibakar Behera for

threatening the deceased. It is also found from the record

that in order to harass the complainant, the petitioner

and his family members had threatened one Susanta

Behera to close down his shop running in a rented

accommodation by assaulting him and thereby,

Purushottampur P.S. Case No.738 of 2024 has been

registered against the petitioner-Dibakar Behera, but the

petitioner had allegedly remained elusive to the police in

that case.

6. Even otherwise, coming to the plea of the

petitioner-Dibakar Behera for non-compliance of the

provision of Sec.47 of BNSS, it appears that the petitioner

was arrested in this case on 16.09.2025 and forwarded to

the Court on that day, but no such plea was taken by the

BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

petitioner at the time of his forwarding, however, it is

claimed by the Investigating Agency that the said

provision of Sec. 47 of BNSS has been duly complied with

in this case. Further, a perusal of the arrest memo

prepared in this case would go to disclose that the

grounds of arrest has been communicated to the

petitioner-Dibakar Behera by stating therein that as

prima facie evidence U/S.103(1)/3(5) of BNS is well

made against the accused-petitioner and such arrest

memo is signed by the petitioner-Dibakar Behera himself.

Much emphasis has been put for non-furnishing of written

grounds of arrest to hold non-compliance of the provision

of Sec.47 of BNSS, but this Court considers it apt to refer

to paragraph-68 of the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah

Vrs. State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500

wherein the Apex Court has held as under: -

68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences.

Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025

would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth."

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and on going

through the arrest memo of the petitioner-Dibakar

Behera and taking into account the requirement of law

U/S. 47 of BNSS on the face of the aforesaid ruling of the

Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), this Court

does not find infraction in compliance of provision of

Sec.47 of BNSS in terms of the ruling of the Apex Court

as referred to above, since the petitioner-Dibakar Behera

herein was arrested only on 16.09.2025 at 8.30A.M., but

the judgment rendered by the Apex Court was on

06.11.2025.

8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and