Pankaj Tiwari vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S)
2026 Latest Caselaw 3934 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3934 Ori
Judgement Date : 27 April, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Pankaj Tiwari vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 27 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          ABLAPL No.3208 of 2026
        Pankaj Tiwari                                   Petitioner(s)
                                       ....
                                        Mr. Sidhartha Das, Advocate
                                   -versus-
        State of Odisha                 ....         Opposite Party(s)

                                              Mr. Sonak Mishra, AGA

               CORAM:
               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                    ORDER

Order No. 27.04.2026

01.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel

for the State.

3. The Petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with

Barbil P.S. Case No.72 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case

No.262 of 2026, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Barbil

for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections

318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 340, 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and 66

(D) of the IT Act, 2000 has 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 Petitioner 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

vide order dated 26.04.2021 passed in ABLAPL No.5283 of 2021

2020 SCC OnLine SC 2108

assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from 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:

"9.......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

1986 SCC Online Guj 56

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 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 Petitioner is 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 Petitioner.