[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sushanta Dhalasamanta & Another vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite on 11 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.9082, 9084 & 12246 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 439 of
CrPC, 1973).
Sushanta Dhalasamanta & Another ... Petitioners
(In BLAPL No.9082 of 2025)
Debasish Kar
(In BLAPL No. 9084 of 2025)
Lipuna @ Debadutta Das
(In BLAPL No. 12246 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite
Party
For Petitioners : Mr. C.Samantaray, Advocate
(In all these BLAPLs)
For Opposite Party : Mr. P.S.Nayak,Special
Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:11.02.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. These are applications U/S.439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure(in short, "CrPC") by the petitioners
for grant of bail in connection with Chauliaganj P.S.
Case No.27 of 2016 corresponding to S.T. Case No.35
of 2018/ S.T. Case No.100 of 2023 (G.R. Case No. 222
of 2016) pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge,
Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss.387/120-B/34 of IPC r/w. Sec.25(1-B)(a)/25(1-
AA)/27 of Arms Act, 1959 (in short "the Act"), on the
main allegation of demanding extortion money and
possessing prohibited firearms and live ammunitions.
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Chandan
Samanataray, learned counsel for the petitioners in all
these three bail applications submits that although the
petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar
Dhalasamanta in BLAPL No. 9082 of 2025 have been
made as accused persons in this case, but the seizure
was made in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016, and
therefore, the present case registered against the
aforesaid petitioners is not maintainable and thereby,
the offence U/S.25(1-AA) of the Act is not attracted
against the petitioners, but the petitioners having
already been detained in custody for a substantial
period, may kindly be granted bail. Further, Mr.
Samantaray submits that the petitioners Debasish Kar
(BLAPL No.9084 of 2025) and Lipuna @ Debadutta Das
(BLAPL No. 12246 of 2025) have no substantial criminal
antecedents, but they having been detained in custody
for a substantial period without any material, their bail
application may kindly be considered favourably by
extending the principle of parity in view of grant of bail
to co-accused Arif Khan and Dilu @ Pradeep Sahu in
BLAPL Nos. 7411 of 2025 & 8201 of 2025.
2.1. On the other hand, Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,
learned Special engaged Counsel in these cases
opposes the bail applications of the petitioners by
contending, inter alia that the petitioners Sushanta
Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar Dhalasamanta are not
only history-sheeters, but also they have got past
conviction under the Act, but the punishment
prescribed for the offence U/S.25(1-AA) of the Act is
not less than 10 years, however, the same may extend
up to imprisonment for life, but the penalty as provided
therein would be doubled in case of previous conviction
for offence under the Act in view of the provision of
Section 31 of the Act, and therefore, the petitioners
Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar
Dhalasamanta having been previously convicted for the
offence under the Act, there is every likelihood of
imposition of twice the penalty as prescribed for the
offence on the Dhala Samanta brothers in case of their
conviction for the said offence. Accordingly, Mr. Nayak,
prays not only to reject the bail application of the
petitioners Suhanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar
Dhalasamanta, but also that of the petitioners Debasish
Kar and Lipuna @ Debadutta Das, however, Mr. Nayak
does not dispute about grant of bail to co-accused Arif
Khan and Dilu @ Pradeep Sahu.
3. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of the record, there appears allegation
against the petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and
Sushil Kumar Dhalasamanta for possessing prohibited
firearms and live ammunitions, but some of the
witnesses so far examined have deposed against the
aforesaid two petitioners by supporting the prosecution
allegation. Further, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner Sushanta Dhalasamanta has been convicted
in two criminal cases and is accordingly, sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for 07 years in one criminal case
and imprisonment for 05 years in another criminal
case. Similarly, the petitioner-Sushil Kumar
Dhalasamanta has been convicted in one criminal case
with sentence to undergo imprisonment for 07 years
therein. Besides, there are series of criminal
antecedents reported against the petitioners. What
should be the consideration for grant bail has been
elucidated in a plethora of decisions, but in addition to
such factors for consideration of bail application, the
criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be brushed
lightly as it has got definite impact on the society. In
this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision of
the Apex Court in Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & another; (2014) 16 SCC 508, wherein at
Paragraph-17, it has been 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."
4. Further, Section 480(1)(ii) of BNSS prescribes
that such person shall not be so released if such
offence is a cognizable offence and he had been
previously convicted of an offence punishable with
death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
seven years or more, or he had been previously
convicted on two or more occasions of a
cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment
for three years or more but less than seven years :
provided further that the Court may also direct such
person referred to above be released on bail, if it is
satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other
special reason.
5. Further, it is also not disputed that the
petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar
Dhalasamanta have already been convicted for offence
under the Act, but Section 31 of the Act prescribes
punishment for subsequent offences in following words,
"31. Punishment for subsequent offences-
Whoever having been convicted of an
offence under this Act is again convicted of
an offence under this Act shall be punishable
with double the penalty provided for the
latter offence."
6. Additionally, Section 25(1-AA) of Act
provides punishment, which shall not be less than ten
years, but may extend to imprisonment for life and
shall also be liable for fine. In this Case, the petitioners
Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar
Dhalasamanta are facing trial for the offences under
IPC & for Section 25(1-AA) of Act. It is, however,
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that Section 25(1-AA) of the Act is not made out
against the petitioners, but such plea has to be decided
by the learned trial Court after evidence is being led. In
a bail proceeding, this Court neither considers advisable
nor desirable to accept such plea at this stage to say
that the offence under Section 25(1-AA) of the Act is
not made out. The only consideration in granting or
refusing bail is dependent upon existence of prima facie
case or not, but after going through the materials
placed on record together with the evidence of the
witnesses as produced, this Court does not consider it
proper to opine that the offence under Section 25(1-
AA) of the Act is not made out against the petitioners-
Suhanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar
Dhalasamanta
7. Further, the length of custody has been
advanced as a plea for grant of bail, but this Court is
fortified with a decision of the Apex Court in State of
Bihar and another Vrs. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha
Rai; (2017) 13 SCC 751 wherein it has been held in
paragraph-8 as under:-
"8. Xxx xxx xxx When the seriousness of the
offence is such, the mere fact that he was
in jail for however long time should not
be the concern of the courts. We are not
able to appreciate such a casual approach
while granting bail in a case which has the
effect of undermining the trust of people in
the integrity of the education system in the
State of Bihar."
8. On coming back to the bail plea of co-
accused petitioners Debasish Kar and Lipuna @
Debadutta Das, it appears that the aforesaid two
petitioners are having only criminal antecedents of two
or three criminal cases, but they are in custody since
13.08.2018 (Lipuna @ Debadutta Das) and 16.03.2016
(Debasish Kar). Further, co-accused Arif Khan and Dilu
@ Pradeep Sahu in BLAPL Nos. 7411 of 2025 & 8201 of
2025, who appear to be standing on similar footing with
the aforesaid two petitioners, have already been
granted bail by this Court.
9. In view of the above facts and after having
considered the rival submissions and on going through
the materials placed on record together with the
undisputed fact of previous convictions of the
petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar
Dhalasamanta for offences under the Act and other
offences and they having been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for seven years on the backdrop of the
petitioners having checkered criminal history, but the
petitioners Debasish Kar and Lipuna @ Debadutta Das
having no serious criminal background and they having
detained in custody for a substantial period and the
main allegation of possessing unauthorized firearms
and live ammunitions being directed against the
petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar
Dhalasamanta and taking into account grant of bail to
co-accused Arif Khan and Dilu @ Pradeep Sahu in
BLAPL Nos. 7411 of 2025 & 8201 of 2025, this Court
while not being inclined to grant bail to Sushanta
Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar Dhalasamanta,
considers it proper to admit the petitioners Debasish
Kar and Lipuna @ Debadutta Das to bail.
10. Hence, the bail applications of the
petitioners namely Debasish Kar (BLAPL No.9084 of
2025) and Lipuna @ Debadutta Das (BLAPL No. 12246
of 2025) stand allowed, whereas the bail application of
the petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil
Kumar Dhalasamanta (BLAPL No. 9082 of 2025) stands
rejected and accordingly the petitioners- Debasish Kar
& Lipuna @ Debadutta Das are allowed to go on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh) each with two solvent sureties for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin
of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit
and proper by it.
11. Accordingly, these three BLAPLs stand disposed
of. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately
communicated to the concerned Court, who shall
afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail
through e-mail for reference.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 11th day of February, 2026/S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 12-Feb-2026 11:18:13
