[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 21 April, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.11590, 11900 & 11904 of 2025 & 385 of 2026
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Akhila Swain
(In BLAPL No.11590 of 2025)
Bibhuti Swain & others
(In BLAPL No.11900 of 2025)
Kedar Swain & Another
(In BLAPL No.11904 of 2025)
Sapana Nahak @ Sapan Kumar Nahak
(In BLAPL No. 385 of 2026) ... Petitioners
Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate
(in BLAPL Nos.11590 of 2025 & 385 of 2026)
Mr. M.K.Mishra, Sr.Advocate, along with
Mr.B.K.Mishra, Advocate
(in BLAPL Nos.11900 & 11904 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. R.B.Mishra, Addl. PP
Mr.S.K.Mahanty, Advocate for (Informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:21.04.2026(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.
BLAPL Nos.11590 of 2025 along with other cases
2. These are applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the
petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Chhatrapur
P.S. Case No.405 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.
951 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM,
Chatrapur for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss.103/109/115(2)/190/191(2)/191(3)/296/ 303(2)/
351(2)/351(3) of BNS.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr.Manoj Kumar
Mishra, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by
Mr.Biswa Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners in BLAPL Nos. 11900 & 11904 of 2025 submits
that the petitioners have been in fact falsely implicated in
this case due to political rivalry, but all the allegations
appearing against the petitioners are omnibus in nature,
however, none of the witnesses has specifically stated the
role of each of the individual petitioners and that apart,
one of the co-accused Pabitra Sahu has already been
granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CRLMC No. 902 of 2026 and so far the allegation of
injuring the other witnesses, there is in fact no injury
report available on record, even after submission of
BLAPL Nos.11590 of 2025 along with other cases
charge sheet and, therefore, those witnesses who claim
themselves to be injured cannot be believed because of
such situation. Mr.Mishra further submits that the
informant has presented the case as if he is the eye
witness to the occurrence, but he had arrived later to the
spot and his version cannot be believed to detain the
petitioners further in custody. Accordingly, Mr.Mishra
prays to grant bail to the petitioners. Much or less is the
submission as advanced by Mr.Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned
counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL No. 11590 of 2025 &
385 of 2026.
3.1. On the contrary, Mr.Santosh Kumar Mahanty,
learned counsel for the informant submits that not only
the petitioners have eliminated the deceased with the
help of others, but also the motive behind the crime is to
take over the village fund which the deceased was
opposing and the deceased has in fact sustained 28
injuries which speaks a lot about the action of the
petitioners who in tandem had attacked and executed
their plan. Mr.Mahanty accordingly prays to reject the bail
application of the petitioners.
BLAPL Nos.11590 of 2025 along with other cases
3.2. Mr.R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. PP in addition to
the submissions as advanced by Mr.Mohanty submits that
it is a case of killing of an innocent person by assaulting
him with lethal weapons and the materials on record
definitely disclose allegation against the petitioners for
committing murder of the deceased, but so far the
contention advanced for the petitioners is concerned, the
role of the bail Court is not to adjudicate the materials
placed on record, rather to find out prima facie case and
in this case, there is prima facie case against the
petitioners for assaulting the injured and murdering the
deceased Tofan Swain and, therefore, the bail application
of the petitioners may kindly be rejected.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against
the petitioners for committing rioting along with co-
accused persons being armed with lethal weapons by
forming an unlawful assembly and attacking the
deceased-Tofan Swain and the injured persons Aditya
Sahu, Rahul Swain, Sudhir Swain and Nandu Barik, but it
BLAPL Nos.11590 of 2025 along with other cases
is an admitted fact that co-accused-Pabitra Sahu has
already been admitted to bail in CRLMC No. 902 of 2026
which is in fact an application U/S. 528 of BNSS, but the
petitioners are before this Court in applications U/S. 483
of BNSS, however, the consideration in both the
provisions are different. Besides, the PM report of the
deceased discloses him to have sustained 28 injures
which includes cut and lacerated wound, contusion,
fracture etc. It is, however, stated by the learned counsel
for the informant that the motive behind the crime is for
taking over the control of village fund namely, fund of
"Kothaghar". Be that as it may, there appears serious
allegation against the petitioners. In the aforesaid facts
and situation and taking into account the nature and
gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners
vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against
them and regard being had to the number of injuries
found on the person of the deceased and last but not the
least, the punishment prescribed for the offences
including the offence of murder as alleged against the
petitioners and trial having not yet commenced, but there
BLAPL Nos.11590 of 2025 along with other cases
are eye witnesses account to the occurrence, this Court in
this situation does not consider it proper to grant bail to
the petitioners.
5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioners
Akhila Swain(BLAPL No. 11590 of 2025), Bibhuti Swain,
Gheuri @ Gouri Shankar Swain, Harsha Sahu, Sameer
Sahu, Niranjan Swain (BLAPL No. 11900 of 2025), Kedar
Swain & Tapan Sahu @ Tapan Kumar Sahu(BLAPL No.
11904 of 2025) & Sapana Nahak @ Sapan Kumar
Nahak(BLAPL No. 385 of 2026) stands rejected.
Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A copy of
this order be immediately communicated to the learned
trial Court.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Digitally Signed Dated the 21st day of April, 2026/Kishore
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 22-Apr-2026 14:38:25
BLAPL Nos.11590 of 2025 along with other cases
