[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Parsuram Rajneth Bhai Pal vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 7 March, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.6838 of 2024
Parsuram Rajneth Bhai Pal ... Petitioner
Ms. C. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. J.P. Patra, Advocate (OPID)
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 07.03.2026
27. I.A. No. 69 of 2026
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is an application by the petitioner for
extension of interim bail for a period of another two
months (60days) on the ground of self-treatment.
3. Heard, Ms. Chandana Tripathy, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Patra, learned
counsel for the OPID in the matter and perused the
record together with the instruction of the IO as
supplied in this case.
4. On perusal of record, it appears that this
Court by way of an order dated 01.12.2025 passed in
IA No.1069 of 2025 has granted interim bail to the
petitioner for a period of 45 days, subject to certain
conditions for his treatment of multivessel coronary
artery disease which requires CABG (coronary artery
bypass graft), but the petitioner after undergoing
surgery on 03.01.2026 and discharged from the
Medanta Hospital on 04.01.2026 as per the
instruction produced by the IO today is pressing this
IA for extension of interim bail after its expiry,
however, on the last date, it was submitted for the
petitioner that he is willing to undergo a laser
angioplasty procedure, which was stated in the
affidavit sworn in by the brother of the petitioner
annexing medical documents of Medanta Hospital, in
which it was stated that the patient is undergoing
dental treatment for infection and plan is for to do
PCI after dental treatment, but it appears that the
petitioner had intentionally omitted to disclose about
him already undergone CABG on 03.01.2026 in such
affidavit. It, however, found from the record that the
interim bail granted to the petitioner for 45 days was
subject to condition of his producing document
sharing progress in the treatment to the Court in
seisin over the matter in every 15 days with copy to
learned State counsel and this order was passed to
evaluate the health condition of the petitioner during
interim bail, but when the matter was taken up on
04.02.2026, one medical document dated 04.02.2026
stated to be issued by NH Narayan Super Speciality
Hospital, Gurugaon, New-Delhi was produced by the
petitioner in which the treatment plan for the
petitioner was stated to be for EARLY LASER
ASSISTED ANGIOPLASTY AND STENTING with
advice for his admission on 20th February, 2026 and
the aforesaid medical document was supplied to the
learned OPID counsel who on the next date i.e. on
17.02.2026 produces the written instruction received
from the IO enclosing the opinion dated 07.02.2026
of Dr. Madhukar Shahi of Narayan Hospital who in
such document perusing the reports and CD angio of
the petitioner had opined that the patient needs
either laser assisted angioplasty and stent (ELCA +
stent) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), but
surprisingly enough it is found from the written
instruction of the IO as produced today that the
petitioner had already undergone CABG on
03.01.2026 at Medanta Hospital and was discharged
on 04.01.2026 which speaks against the conduct of
the petitioner in misleading the Court.
5. It is relevant to reiterate that the petitioner
had earlier sought for and availed interim bail
w.e.f.06.06.2025 to 04.07.2025, but during that
period, it was found from the report of the IO that the
petitioner stayed in a hotel namely Rayal Lagoon in
room no.102, situated at Rajmahal Chhak,
Bhubaneswar and visited AIIMS Hospital,
Bhubaneswar for many times, however, he avoided
heart surgery by taking various pleas and the
petitioner did not co-operate the escort party then.
The aforesaid interim bail of the petitioner for 45days
have already expired on 06.02.2026, but on the
prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
orders were passed not to take any coercive action
against the petitioner with a hope that the petitioner
would complete his treatment and surrender to
custody. It is further, found from the record, that
despite order being passed, the petitioner has not yet
disclosed his treatment plan and he has filed an
affidavit on the last date only to state that the
operation would be conducted only after doctors are
satisfied that all safety parameters are within
permissible limits, which in the aforesaid
circumstance appears to be incorrect inasmuch as the
petitioner has already undergone CABG on
03.01.2026 and discharged from the hospital on
04.01.2026. In the aforesaid facts and situation, this
Court, however, considers that the petitioner has only
intention to remain in interim bail without any real
treatment and he is avoiding the process of Court by
taking one or some other plea.
6. It is not out of place to mention here that the
petitioner is having eight criminal antecedents in all
over the India excluding this case and the allegation
against the petitioner in this case is for
misappropriating public money for a sum of Rs.12.87
crore which investment was obtained from 133
investors on the assurance of providing high returns.
In the aforesaid facts and situation, especially when
the petitioner has mislead the Court by stating in the
affidavit that the operation will be conducted only
after doctors are satisfied that all the safety
parameters are within permissible limit, but not
disclosing the real treatment plan despite being
directed and taking into account his involvement in
other eight criminal cases in all over India excluding
this case and the petitioner being on interim bail for
around more than two and half months and he having
already undergone CABG around two months before,
this Court does not find any justification to extend the
interim bail.
Hence the prayer for interim bail to the
petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the I.A.
stands disposed of. The petitioner is, however,
advised to surrender to custody within seven days,
failing which the Court in seisin of the case may take
appropriate steps in accordance with law.
7. List this matter on 20.03.2026.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Digitally Signed Jayakrushna
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 08-Mar-2026 11:56:25
