[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 29 January, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   BLAPL NO.6805 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section 439 of
   CrPC, 1973).

   1. Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta ...               Petitioners
   2. Susil Kumar Dhalsamanta

                             -versus-

   State of Odisha                       ...   Opposite Party

   For Petitioners          : Mr. C.Samantaray,Mr.S.K.Patra
                              & Mr.S.Biswal, Advocates

   For Opposite Party       : Mr. P.S.Nayak,Special Counsel

                           CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.01.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure(in short, "CrPC") by the

petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Markat

Nagar PS Case No.229 of 2020 corresponding to

G.R.Case No.1572 of 2020 pending in the file of learned

2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, for commission

of offences punishable U/Ss.386/387/120-B of Indian

Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-AA)/25(1-

B) of Arms Act, on the main allegation of demanding

extortion money and possessing unauthorized firearms

and live ammunition in their house.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Chandan

Samanataray, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that although the petitioners have been made

as accused persons in this case, but the seizure was

made in Choudwar P.S. Case No.594 of 2020, and

therefore, the present case registered against the

present petitioners is not maintainable. Mr. Samantaray

by relying upon the forensic report further submits that

even at the worst, the weapon seized in this case being

not unauthorized weapon, the offences prescribed

under Section 25(1-AA) of Arms Act is not attracted

against the petitioners and the petitioners having

already been detained in custody for a substantial

period of ten years may kindly be granted bail.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,

learned special counsel engaged in this case opposes

the bail application of the petitioners by contending,

inter alia that the petitioners are not only the history-

sheeters, but also they have got past convictions. Mr.

Nayak further submits that the punishment prescribed

for the offence under Section 25(1-AA) of Arms Act is

not less than 10 years, but may extend up to

imprisonment for life, however, the present petitioners

being convicted for Arms Act, their punishment may be

doubled on conviction in this case for the offences

under Arms Act in view of the provision of Section 31 of

the Arms Act, and therefore, the bail application of the

petitioners may kindly be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of the records, there appears allegation

against the petitioners for possessing arms and live

ammunitions and the certified copy of the depositions

of witnesses P.Ws.3 & 5, who are the police personnel

as supplied by learned counsel for the petitioners reveal

about the aforesaid two witnesses deposing against the

petitioners by supporting the prosecution allegation.

Further, it is not in dispute that petitioner no.1-Susanta

Kumar Dhalasamanta has been convicted in two

criminal cases and is accordingly sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for seven years in one criminal case and

imprisonment for five years in another criminal case.

Similarly, the comprehensive affidavit filed by petitioner

no.2-Susil Kumar Dhalasamanta reveals about his

conviction in one criminal case with sentence to

undergo imprisonment for seven 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 vrs- State of Utter 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."

5. 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.

Additionally, it is also not disputed that the

petitioners have already been convicted for Arms Act,

but Section 31 of the Arms Act, 1959 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. Section 25(1-AA) of Arms 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 are facing

trial for the offence under Section 25(1-AA) of Arms

Act. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that Section 25(1-AA) of Arms 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 does not

consider it advisable or desirable to accept such plea at

this stage to say that the offence under Section 25(1-

AA) of Arms 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 Arms Act is not

made out against the petitioners.

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. 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 for offences under Arms Act and other

offences and they having sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for seven years on the backdrop of the

petitioners having chequered criminal history, this

Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

9. Hence, the bail application of the

petitioners stand rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL

stands disposed of.