Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @ vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 45 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @ vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 6 January, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
  BLAPL Nos. 9883, 9885, 12570 of 2024 & 3926, 3948, 4553 of 2025

(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of the
BNSS).

  Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @                 ...       Petitioners
  Pabana Sahu and others
  (In BLAPL No. 9883 of 2024)
  Juria @ Rajendra Sahu
  (In BLAPL No. 9885 of 2024)
  Sudam Mallik
  (In BLAPL No. 12570 of 2024)
  Surendra Mallik and another
  (In BLAPL No. 3926 of 2025)
  Balaram Bisoyi
  (In BLAPL No. 3948 of 2025)
  Purna Chandra Sahu and
  another
  (In BLAPL No. 4553 of 2025)
                       -versus-
  State of Odisha                           ... Opposite Party

  For Petitioners              : Mr. B.K. Raj, Advocate
                                  (In BLAPL Nos. 9883 & 9885 of
                                  2024)
                                  Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate
                                  (In BLAPL No. 12570 of 2024)
                                  Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
                                  (In BLAPL No. 3926 of 2025)
                                  Mr. S.K. Pradhan, Advocate
                                  (In BLAPL Nos. 3948 & 4553 of
                                  2025)

  For Opposite Party           : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP

       CORAM:
                  JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                      DATE OF HEARING : 11.12.2025
                      DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06.01.2026


BLAPL Nos.9883 of 2024 along with other cases        Page 1 of 13
 G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since these six bail applications 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 six bail applications U/S.483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short, "BNSS") by

the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with K.

Nuagaon PS Case No.252 of 2024 corresponding to ST

Case No. 467 of 2024 (GR Case No.383 of 2024) being

charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable

U/Ss.61(2)/110/274/123/275/103(1)/118/3(5) of BNS

r/w Sections 52(a)/59/62 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008

pending in the file of learned 1st Additional Sessions

Judge, Berhmapur, Ganjam and learned JMFC, Patrapur

(BLAPL Nos. 9883 & 9885 of 2024) respectively.

3. The present case arises out of an FIR lodged by

SI Ranjit Mohapatro of K.Nuagaon PS on 20.08.2024 at

2AM that on 9.30PM on 19.08.2024 he received

information from the local source that around 15 and

some more persons of village Jenapur, Maundapur &

Karabalua have been admitted to CHC, Chikiti and

undergoing treatment for consumption of spurious liquor

and on enquiry, he found Pradeep Behera, Kalu Sethy,

Bulu Sethy, Siba Sethy, Dayanidhi Sahu, Jura Behera,

Kama Behera of village Jenapur and Jena Sethy of village

Maundapur, Bairi Sethy, Bhubani Sethy, Khalia Sethy of

village Karabalua to have consumed liquor by purchasing

it from petitioner Baya Sahu and his two sons Bapini

Sahu and Pabana Sahu. Similarly, petitioner Rabi Sahu

and his brothers Purna Sahu and Juria Sahu being

assisted by village Headman-cum-petitioner Balaram

Bisoyi had also sold liquor to some other persons, but the

person consuming liquor had become serious and they

felt head-reeling and severe stomach pain and vomited

frequently and, therefore, they had been brought to CHC,

Chikiti individually by their family members for their

treatment, however, after preliminary treatment, all the

above referred persons have been referred to MKCG,

MCH, Berhampur for their better treatment. On this

report, K. Nuagaon PS Case No.252 of 2024 was

registered and the matter was investigated into, but

unfortunately five persons namely Pradip Behera, Laxman

Behera, Baya @ Bairi Sethy, Jura Behera and Lokanath

Behera have expired for consumption of spurious liquor.

On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was

submitted against the petitioners and some others.

4. Heard, Mr. Bikram Keshari Raj, learned counsel

for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.9883 & 9885 of 2024;

Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, learned counsel for the

petitioner in BLAPL No.12570 of 2024; Mr. Amitav

Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL

No.3926 of 2025; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pradhan, learned

counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.3948 & 4553 of

2025 and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor in these matters and perused the record.

4.1. In the course of argument, all the counsels

appearing for the respective petitioners have submitted in

equal tones that the deceased having died due to some

other reason, but not for consuming any liquor which was

confirmed by the Forensic Report of the viscera of the

deceased as submitted by the CFSL, Kolkata and the

petitioners have had no role in the death of the deceased

persons and they being innocent may kindly be granted

bail. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner

Balaram Bisoyi has submitted that the petitioner Balaram

Bisoyi has no role either in selling the liquor to anybody

or in any way in this case, but he having entangled in this

case by falsely showing him to be assisting co-accused

petitioners for selling the liquor, he may kindly be

granted bail.

4.2. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, however, by placing strong

reliance on the report of the concerned doctor has

submitted that the cause of death of the deceased could

be probably due to multi organ failure and as a result of

ingestion of certain toxic and noxious substances and the

ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate found in the

samples of spurious liquor seized from the house of the

petitioner Baya Sethy, a prima facie case is made out

against the petitioners for selling spurious liquors to

general public and, thereby, allowing the deceased

persons to consume such spurious liquor at cheap price

and, therefore, the petitioners being found responsible for

the death of five innocent persons, their bail applications

may kindly be rejected. Mr. Patra has also submitted that

the petitioner Balaram Bisoyi having provided protection

to co-accused for selling spurious liquor is equally

responsible for the death of the deceased and, therefore,

he being equally responsible, his bail application may

kindly be rejected.

5. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of record, this Court before dwelling upon

the facts involved in the present case reminds that the

statutory provisions of bail confers wide discretion on the

Court either to grant or refuse bail to the applicant, but

such exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary or de-

hors the basic principles laid down by different

constitutional Courts in a catena of decisions. The

parameters under which discretion has to be considered

has been well elucidated by Apex Court in Prasanta

Kumar Sarkar Vrs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr : (2010)

14 SCC 496, wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 9 has

held as under:-

"9. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(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."

Additionally, in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vrs.

Ashish Mishra & Ors.; 2022 9 SCC 321, while

emphasizing the duty of the Court and relevant

consideration for bail, the Apex Court at Paragraphs 27

and 33 has held as under:-

"27. We may, at the outset, clarify that power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is one

of wide amplitude. A High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But, as has been held by this Court on multiple occasions, this discretion is not unfettered. On the contrary, the High Court or the Sessions Court must grant bail after the application of a judicial mind, following well- established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner.

33. Before dealing with the case at hand, we may, at the cost of repetition, emphasise that a Court while deciding an application for bail, should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. While a Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds whether the Accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. It is thus deemed appropriate to outrightly clarify that neither have we considered the merits of the case nor are we inclined to comment on the evidence collected by the SIT in the present case."

6. In considering the case of the petitioners on the

backdrop of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in

the decisions referred to above, it is quite clear that detail

analysis of evidence and meticulous examination of

documents on merit should be avoided at the time of

consideration of bail, but at the first instance, the Court

has the duty to consider prima facie case or reasonable

ground to believe that the serious allegations levelled

against the accused constitute the commission of

offences or not. In this case, it is disclosed in the charge-

sheet that the deceased persons had been admitted to

hospital after consuming liquor stated to be spurious by

purchasing it from some of the petitioners and eventually

losing their lives. Further, there is allegation against the

petitioners Sudam Mallik, Surendra Mallik and Rama

Mallik for manufacturing and supplying liquors to co-

accused persons.

7. Besides, the gravity of accusations is evident

from the death of five innocent persons in this case. It is

also alleged that liquors were seized from the house of

co-accused Baya Sahu, Rabi Sahu and other co-accused

persons. It is also stated in the charge-sheet that urea

which is a fertilizer has been recovered from the house of

co-accused. It is no doubt advanced for the petitioners

that the viscera reports of the deceased persons as

submitted by the CFSL, Kolkata do not reveal the

presence of any poisonous and toxic substances/drugs,

but the CE report of the sample collected from the seized

liquors from the house of the co-accused Baya Sethy

reveals the presence of ammonium nitrate and

ammonium sulphate and it is opined by the doctor

conducting PM report that such compounds can cause

death of the deceased by causing multi organ failure,

however, this Court does not consider it proper to enter

into the arena of analysis of the reports submitted by the

CFSL, Kolkata and SFSL, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar

together with the opinion of the doctor at this stage,

which is impermissible at the time of consideration of

bail. What is relevant at this stage is that five persons

suffered death and some persons suffered illness after

consuming liquor sold by the co-accused persons and

there is allegation against the petitioners for either selling

the liquor to some of the villagers without any authority

or supplying the same to vendors-cum-co-accused

persons for selling it. On the other hand, there is

allegation against the petitioner Balaram Bisoyi for

assisting some of the co-accused to sell liquor as a village

head man, but there is no direct allegation against him

for selling any liquor to the villagers. Besides, co-accused

petitioners Bapini Sahu, Baya Sahu, Juria @ Rajendra

Sahu and Rabi Sahu are having criminal antecedents in

matter relating to ID liquor, which assumes significance

in the present context of facts. Besides, number of other

persons had also been admitted to hospital after

consuming liquor by allegedly purchasing it from some of

the petitioners. Apart from the aforesaid facts, none of

the petitioners are having any license or authority to sell

any liquor.

8. In view of the discussions of facts and

considering the role of each of the petitioners together

with tragic death of five innocent persons and number of

persons suffering from illness after consuming liquor

allegedly sold by some of the petitioners and taking into

account the impact of death of innocent villagers after

consuming liquor on the society and trial having not yet

commenced, it would not be proper to grant bail to the

persons who are allegedly selling or supplying the liquor,

but there being no direct material against the petitioner

Balaram Bisoyi for selling liquor to any of the villagers

and he having no criminal antecedent of similar nature

and taking into account the only allegation against him

for assisting co-accused in selling the liquor, but not

being clarified as to the manner in which he was assisting

the co-accused, this Court considers his case positively.

9. In the result, while being inclined to grant bail to

petitioner Balaram Bisoyi in BLAPL No.3948 of 2025, this

Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to rest of

the petitioners namely Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @

Pabana Sahu, Bipini Sahu & Baya Sahu in BLAPL No.9883

of 2024; Juria @ Rajendra Sahu in BLAPL No.9885 of

2024; Sudam Mallik in BLAPL No.12570 of 2024;

Surendra Mallik and Rama Mallik in BLAPL No.3926 of

2025 and Purna Chandra Sahu & Rabi Sahu in BLAPL

No.4553 of 2025.

10. Hence, the bail application of the Balaram Bisoyi

in BLAPL No.3948 of 2025 stands allowed and he be

allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent

sureties each 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 with following

condition:-

(i) the petitioner- Balaram Bisoyi in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner-Balaram Bisoyi fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, all these BLAPL Nos.9883, 9885,

12570 of 2024 & 3926, 3948, 4553 of 2025 stand

disposed of.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

OrissaSAHOO Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR High Court, Cuttack, Reason: Authentication Dated Location: High Court of Orissa the 6th day of January, 2026/Kishore Date: 06-Jan-2026 18:45:20