[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
2023) vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 17 March, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.1016, 1494, 2296 of 2026
(In the matter of applications Under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023)
Kasi @ Kashimuddin Khan .... Petitioners
(In BLAPL No.1016 of 2026)
Sk. Mozafer @ Sk. Mojafar @
Pati
(In BLAPL No.1494 of 2026)
Sk. Abu Tallha
(In BLAPL No. 2296 of 2026)
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
For Petitioners : Mr. L.Samantaray, Sr. counsel along
with Mr.P.Dash, Advocate
(In BLAPL No. 1016 of 2016)
Mr.S.K.Baral, Advocate
(In BLAPL No. 1494 of 2026)
Mr.Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate
(In BlAPL No. 2296 of 2026)
For Opposite Party : Mr. C.Mohanty, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:17.03.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. Since these three bail applications arise out of
one and same case record, the same are taken up together
BLAPL No. 1016 of 2026 & other cases
and disposed of by this common order with the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties.
2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS
by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Tihidi
PS Case No.197 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.1190
of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Bhadrak for
commission of offences punishable U/Ss.126(2)/293/118(2)/
109/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of
committing murder of one Santosh Parida by assaulting him
conjointly with lathis, along with co-accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention.
3. Heard Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, learned
Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr.Pratik Dash,
learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 1016 of
2026; Mr.Susanta Kumar Baral, learned counsel for the
petitioner in BLAPL No. 1494 of 2026; Mr.Sk. Zafarulla,
learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2296 of 2026
and Mr. C.Mohanty, learned Addl. PP in the matter and
perused the record.
BLAPL No. 1016 of 2026 & other cases
4. Bail to the petitioners is in fact sought for
mainly on the ground of release of two co-accused persons
for want of compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS and on merit, but
compliance and non-compliance of Sec. 47 of BNSS would be
governed by the communication of grounds of arrest to an
accused, however, earlier there is no precise mode of written
communication of such grounds of arrest to an accused, but
the Apex Court after making a threadbare discussion on the
topic and provision of law and upon referring to different
citations has laid down some principles in Mihir Rajesh
Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500,
wherein it has been held at Paragraph-68 as under:-
"68. We are cognizant that there existed no
consistent or binding requirement mandating
written communication of the grounds of
arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in
our view, would ensure implementation of the
constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as
engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of
India in an effective manner. Such clarity on
obligation would avoid uncertainty in the
administration of criminal justice. The ends of
fairness and legal discipline therefore demand
that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern
arrests henceforth."
BLAPL No. 1016 of 2026 & other cases
5. On a plain reading of the aforesaid principle as
laid down by Apex Court makes it apparent clear that the
written communication of grounds of arrest to the accused
would apply to the arrest prospectively from the date of the
judgment as rendered in Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra) which
was passed on 06.11.2025, but the present case
demonstrate arrest of the petitioners much prior to
06.11.2025 and in such circumstance, it appears to the Court
that the learned trial Court has not committed illegality in
refusing to grant bail to the petitioners for non-compliance of
Sec. 47 of BNSS which was in fact according to the trial
Court has been duly complied with. Be that as it may, on
coming back to the points on merit, it is, however, submitted
for the petitioners that there was allegation against 20
persons for assaulting the deceased and how come three
injuries would be attributed to 20 persons, if they conjointly
assaulted the deceased by means of sticks, but law is fairly
well settled that detail and meticulous analysis of evidence
BLAPL No. 1016 of 2026 & other cases
and elaborate documentation on merit should be avoided at
the stage of consideration of bail. Whether 20 persons can
conjointly assault a person and three injuries can be
attributed to the accused persons, are definitely question of
facts which can be gone into in the trial. Additionally, the
petitioners have been implicated in this case with aid of Sec.
3(5) of BNS which makes an individual liable for the criminal
act done by several persons in furtherance of their common
intention as if it were done by him alone.
6. Besides, the petitioner Kasi @ Kashimuddin
Khan has in fact approached this Court in BLAPL No. 10398
of 2015 which was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to
him to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the
injured Manas Ranjan Jena, but the said witness is yet to be
examined. It is also not in dispute that the witness Manas
Ranjan Jena is the star witness in this case because he was
present at the time of assault, but according to the
petitioners, his statement cannot be relied upon inasmuch as
at the time of assault, he was fleeing away from the spot,
BLAPL No. 1016 of 2026 & other cases
however, according to this Court, his evidence is material for
just decision in this case. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstance, especially when an innocent person has been
assaulted to death by a group of persons and taking into
account the nature and gravity of offences as alleged against
the petitioners vis-à-vis the allegation sought to be brought
against them and regard being had to the materials placed
on record, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail
to the petitioners at this stage, especially when the principal
witness is yet to be examined.
7. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners
Kasi @ Kashimuddin Khan (in BLAPL No.1016 of 2026), Sk.
Mozafer @ Sk. Mojafar @ Pati (in BLAPL No. 1494 of 2026)
and Sk. Abu Tallha (in BLAPL No.2296 of 2026) stand
rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A
copy of this order be immediately communicated to the
learned trial Court.
On the oral prayer of learned counsel for the
petitioners, investigation be expedited and final charge sheet
BLAPL No. 1016 of 2026 & other cases
be submitted in this case. A copy of this order be
communicated to the concerned Investigation Officer through
Addl. PP.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th day of March, 2026/Kishore
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 18-Mar-2026 14:37:34
BLAPL No. 1016 of 2026 & other cases
