[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Hasan Ansari vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 30 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.1993 of 2026
Hasan Ansari ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Harmohan Dhal
-versus-
state of odisha ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
U.C. Jena, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
30.04.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The present bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S.
has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with
G.R. Case No.224 of 2026, arising out of Bisra P.S Case No.33 of
2026, pending in the Court of learned Additional J.M.F.C.
(Rural), Rourkela for alleged commission of offence punishable
under Sections 111(3), 3(5) of the BNS read with Section 25(8) of
the Arms Act, Section 7(1) of Odisha Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act and Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the Petitioner is in custody since 01.02.2026 upon being arrested
by police in connection with the present case. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner further submitted that in the meantime the
investigation has progressed substantially and the charge sheet is
likely to be filed soon. He further contended that as per the
prosecution allegation, the Petitioner was arrested while illegally
transporting cattle in a cruel manner. As per the prosecution
allegation, on 31.01.2026, the S.I of Bisra police station lodged an
FIR alleging that while the police team was conducting a night
patrol they received information that one of the accused persons
was possessing firearm and is planning to make a deal with
another associate. It has also been alleged that the accused
persons are wanted criminals in the locality and are involved in
organized criminal activities. Upon searching the house of the
accused, the police team recovered a revolver from the house of
the accused-Mojamil Ansari along with ammunition. It is on the
basis of the confessional statement of Mojamil Ansari that the
present Petitioner has been implicated in the present crime. On
the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the present case has been
registered implicating the Petitioner as an accused in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture,
contended that although the charge sheet has not been filed as of
now in the meantime the investigation has progressed
substantially. He further contended that the Petitioner is having
only one criminal antecedent of similar nature. It was also
contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that section
111 of the BNS has been added just to enhance the gravity of the
allegation made against the present petitioner and to ensure that
the Petitioner does not get bail. He further contended that the
alleged offenses are all punishable with imprisonment of less than
seven years and that the present case is covered by the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar
Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & anr. reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 51. On such ground, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that taking into consideration the period of
custodial detention of the Petitioner, the Petitioner be enlarged on
bail on any stringent terms and conditions.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground of gravity and
seriousness of the allegation. He further contended that the
Petitioner is a habitual offender of the locality and he was
involved in criminal conspiracy with some of the local goons in
creating disturbance in the locality. He further expresses his
apprehension that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail,
the same would cause delay in conclusion of the investigation and
there exists a possibility of the Petitioner might get involved in
similar offenses. Accordingly, it was prayed that the bail
application of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of
the nature and gravity of the allegation and the maximum period
of punishment that can be inflicted, further taking into note of the
period of custodial detention of the Petitioner and the fact that the
Petitioner is having only one criminal antecedent, this Court is
inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of
stringent conditions.
8. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail
in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the
matter.
9. It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose
any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. Violation
of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail
application.
10. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is
subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether
the Petitioner is having any criminal antecedent of similar nature.
In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having more than one
similar criminal antecedent, this bail order shall automatically
stand revoked.
11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 02-May-2026 14:56:26
