Khageswar Cochhayat & Ors vs State Of Odisha ....... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3761 Ori

Orissa High Court

Khageswar Cochhayat & Ors vs State Of Odisha ....... Opposite ... on 23 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                  ABLAPL No. 2487 of 2026

                             Khageswar Cochhayat & Ors.                    ........  Petitioner(s)
                                                                      Mr. Ranjan Kumar Nayak, Adv.

                                                         -Versus-
                             State of Odisha                              ....... Opposite Party(s)
                                                                           Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

                                     CORAM:
                                     DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                     ORDER

23.04.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for

the State.

3. The Petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection with

Nihal Prasad P.S. Case No.64 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case

No.185 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.,

Chandikhole for the alleged commission of offences punishable

under Sections 498(A)/323/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of

Dwory Prohibition Act, 1961 have filed this petition under Section

482 of the BNSS for release on pre-arrest bail.

4. Without going into the merits of the present petition filed by the

Petitioners under Section 482 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438

of the Cr.P.C.) seeking direction for pre-arrest bail, this Court is to

observe first that whether the petition under Section 482 of the

BNSS is maintainable before this Court without exhausting

remedy under the said provision before the Court of Sessions

which has concurrent jurisdiction.

5. This Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the case of Mitu

Das and others v. State of Odisha1 observing that ordinarily, in

case of petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, the remedy before

the Court of Sessions ought to be exhausted before invoking the

jurisdiction of the High Court.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar

and Ors.2 has categorically held as follows:

"6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from

1 Signed

LITARAMorder MURMUdated 26.04.2021 passed in ABLAPL No.5283 of 2021

Designation: P.A. Reason: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 2108 Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Apr-2026 19:36:19

the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-complainant as a party.

7. Having regard to the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the serious nature of the allegations against accused respondents and the gravity of the offences alleged, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in passing the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the accused respondents."

7. In the case of Rameschandra Kashiram Vora & Ors. v. State of

Gujarat & Ors.3, wherein the High Court of Gujarat held as

follows:

"10.......I am in respectful agreement with the ratio of these two cases. I am of the opinion that it would be a sound exercise of judicial discretion not to entertain each and every application for anticipatory bail directly bypassing the Court of Session. Ordinarily, the Sessions Court is nearer to the accused and easily accessible and remedy of anticipatory bail is same and under same section and there is no reason to believe that Sessions Court will not act according to law and pass appropriate orders. In a given case, if any accused is grieved, his further remedy to approach the High Court is not barred and he may prefer a substantive application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 or revision application under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. to the High Court and the High Court would have the benefit of the reasons given by the Sessions Court. It would be only in exceptional cases or special circumstances that the High Court may entertain such an application directly and these exceptional and" special

MANU/GJ/0088/1986 Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Apr-2026 19:36:19

circumstances must really be exceptional and should have valid and cogent reasons for by passing the Sessions Court and approaching the High Court......."

8. In view of the above discussion, the applicant should approach

the Sessions Court first then to the High Court like that is adopted

in Section 483 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.)

The reasons for approaching the Court of Sessions first may be

due to the following:

i) Whenever concurrent jurisdiction is provided under the

statute simultaneously in two courts of which one is superior

to the other, then it is appropriate that the party should

apply to the subordinate Court first, then he/she may seek

his/her remedy in the High Court;

ii) The Sessions Court will always be nearer and accessible

court to the parties. Moreover, considering the work load of

the High Courts in the country and the cases of this nature

are nothing but contributing to heavy pendency of cases. The

applications under Section 483 of the BNSS (erstwhile

Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.) often fail to get the required

attention because of the docket arising out of such

applications filed under Section 482 of the BNSS (Section 438

of the Cr.P.C.) directly in the High Court by passing the

Courts of Sessions;

iii) The grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail requires

appreciation, scrutiny of facts and perusal of the entire

materials on record. In this context, if the Sessions Court has

already applied its mind and passed the appropriate order, it

would be easy for the High Court to look into or have a

cursory glance of the observation made by the Sessions

Court and dispose of the case with expedition.

9. In view of the above, the Petitioners are granted interim

protection for a period of three weeks to approach the Court of

Sessions for seeking similar relief and the Court of Sessions shall

list this matter as early as possible before the expiry of three

weeks of protection granted to the Petitioners.

10. In view of the above observation and direction, the ABLAPL is

disposed of.

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu