[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kamal Mallick @ Lalu vs State Of Odisha & Another on 12 January, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA Nos.1086 & 623 of 2025
(In the matter of application U/S.14-A of SC/ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
Kamal Mallick @ Lalu ... Appellants
(In CRLA No.1086 of 2025)
Kathia @ Sunil Mallik
(In CRLA No.623 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha & another ... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. A.K.Sarangi, Advocate
(In CRLA No. 1086 of 2025)
Mr.A.Mishra, Advocate
(In CRLA No. 623 of 2025)
For Respondents : Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP
Mr. S.S.Mohapatra, Advocate
(Informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:12.01.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these two CRLAs 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.
2. These are the criminal appeals in nature of
Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with
amendment Act, 2016 (in short, "the Act") are directed
against the order dated 28.02.2025/05.05.2025 passed
in CT(Spl) Case No.29 of 2025 by which the learned
District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Jajpur
under SC & ST (PA) Act, has refused to release the
appellants on bail in connection with Jajpur Sadar PS
Case No.37 of 2025, for commission of offence
punishable U/Ss.126(2)/296/115(2)/109/103/74/
351(2)/3(5) of BNS r/w Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/2(2)(va) of
the Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of
one Santanu Das and injuring his father by assaulting
them indiscriminately with split wood.
3. Heard, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi, learned
counsel for the appellant in CRLA No. 1086 of 2025;
Mr.Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant in
CRLA No. 623 of 2025; Mr. Susanta Sekhar Mohapatra,
learned counsel for the informant and Mr. P. Satpathy,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and
perused the record.
3.1. In the course of hearing, Mr.Arijeet
Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No.
623 of 2025 submits that there are two FIRs lodged
against the appellants for self-same incident, one after
two days of the alleged assault and another one, after
six days of the occurrence, but fact remains that the
name of the present appellants do not figure out in the
first FIR, however, subsequently, the same was
mentioned due to influence by others and the deceased
having sustained one injury on his person and the
present appellants being not responsible in any way for
the assault of the deceased or injured, the present
appellant may kindly be granted bail.
3.2. In echoing the aforesaid submission, Mr.
Ashok Kumar Sarangi, learned counsel for the appellant
in CRLA No. 1086 of 2025 submits that charge-sheet
has already been submitted, but trial is yet to
commence, however, the further proceeding in this
case has been stayed due to the question regarding
validity of the second FIR and the appellant having
implicated in this case due to political influence, he may
kindly be granted bail.
3.3. On the other hand, Mr. Susanta Sekhar
Mohapatra, learned counsel for the informant by
drawing attention of the Court to the averments taken
in both the FIRs submits that not only the appellants
are involved in this case, but also they have mercilessly
assaulted the deceased as well as the injured, which is
forthcoming from the FIR lodged by the injured and the
deceased and the injured are being members of
scheduled caste, the appellants have committed the
offences and, thereby, the bail applications of the
appellants may kindly be rejected.
3.4. Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, however, submits that the further
proceeding in this case has been stayed on the
application of the appellant-Kamal Mallick @ Lalu and,
thereby, he cannot take the benefit of stay of further
proceeding in this case, but the injured eye witness has
lodged one of the FIRs alleging therein against the
appellants for assaulting the deceased and himself and,
therefore, a young innocent boy aged about 14 years
having lost his life due to assault of the appellants and
co-accused, the appellants may not be admitted to bail.
4. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no
dispute about lodging of two FIRs, one by the aunt of
the deceased and another by the injured, but this Court
is right now not on the point of legality of the FIRs. Be
that as it may, neither the FIR is a substantive piece of
evidence nor is an encyclopedia of facts, but while
considering the bail application of an accused of a case
like this in which one person has lost his life and another
has been assaulted, the Court has to take into
consideration some facts such as:- (i) Whether there is
any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
Accused had committed the offence; (ii) Nature and
gravity of the accusation; (iii) Severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) Danger of
the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of
the Accused; (vi) Likelihood of the offence being
repeated; (vii) Reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced; and (viii) Danger, of course,
of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
5. Applying the aforesaid factors in this case,
there appears allegation against the appellants for
assaulting the deceased and the injured in the FIR
lodged by the injured, but according to the parties, such
FIR is the second FIR, however, the averments of the
second FIR can be taken into consideration towards
evaluating prima facie case in considering the bail
applications of the appellants, since any subsequent
written report containing signature of maker thereof
relating to a criminal case is hit by U/S.181 of BNSS.
Further, the doctor who had conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased has stated in his report that
the injuries found on the brain of the deceased were
ante mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt
trauma and the cause of death of the deceased was due
to head injury and its complication thereof. It is also a
fact that the further proceeding in this case has been
stayed on the application of the appellant-Kamal Mallick
@ Lalu as confirmed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi,
learned counsel for the appellant and he, thereby,
cannot claim the benefit of stay of further proceeding in
the matter. In the meanwhile, after investigation,
preliminary charge-sheet has already been placed
against the appellants. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstance, especially when the cause of death of the
deceased is due to head injury and its complication and
there being allegation against the appellants for
assaulting the deceased and his father, this Court does
not find any good reason to grant bail to the appellants
at this stage.
6. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellants'
stands rejected. Accordingly, both the CRLAs stand
dismissed. A copy of this order be immediately
transmitted to the learned trial Court for reference.
(G. Satapathy)
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 13-Jan-2026 14:07:32
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 12th day of January, 2026/Kishore
