Prakash Tripathy vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 23 March, 2026

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR            ABLAPL Nos.1172, 905 & 1489 of 2026

      Prakash Tripathy                   ....              Petitioner
                             Mr. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate
                                 Mr. Biswabhusan Das, Advocate

                                 -Versus-

      State of Odisha                    ....       Opposite Party
                                              Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA

               CORAM:
               JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                DATE OF HEARING:19.03.2026
                 DATE OF ORDER:23.03.2026


      1.

Instant bail petitions under Section 482 BNSS are filed by the petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Paradeep P.S. Case Nos.310 of 2025, 309 of 2025 and 308 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case Nos.1009 of 2025, 1008 of 2025 and 1007 of 2025 respectively pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.(P), Kujang on the grounds stated.

2.ABLAPL No.1172 of 2026: It relates to case where the prosecution story in brief is that on 17th October, 2025, the informant lodged a report to the effect that he, as the ASI of Paradeep Model P.S. and his staff, proceeded for evening patrol duty and when they were at Paradeep Terminal Chowk received reliable information that some persons are committing theft of petroleum products from tanker, whereafter, on reaching the spot found two persons standing

holding a plastic jerkin, one pipe and funnel and seeing the police party tried to flee from there but were caught by them and thereafter, search was conducted which led to recovery of seven jerkins each having diesel of 50 litres; three other jerkins with diesel of 40 litres each and in total 470 litres and on being asked, none could produce any document for such possession and on interrogation, they disclosed their identity and confessed that they committed theft of diesel from different tankers to sell it to others illegally at a low price. It is further alleged that both the accused persons confessed that it was being done by syndicate and on the direction of the petitioner and others. On the lodging of the FIR as at Annexure-1, Paradeep P.S. Case No.310 of 2025 was registered under Sections 303(2),317(2), 111,3(5) BNS and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

2.1.ABLAPL No.905 of 2026: In the case at hand, a report was lodged in respect of an incident dated 11th May, 2025 with a case registered on 17th October, 2025 with the allegation that the informant while taking rest at a Terminal, the named accused persons and others suddenly entered inside and pointing a firearm at his head and Bhujali on his neck asked him as to why he is not yielding to their demand of money and was abused in filthy language and committed such other mischiefs and was informed that it was being demanded at the behest of the petitioner.

2.2. ABLAPL No.1489 of 2026: In this ABLAPL, the incident relates to a complaint received on 14th October,

2025 by the informant addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur registered as Paradeep P.S. Case No.308 of 2025 alleging therein that he and others are the drivers and helpers of oil tankers operating at the IOCL, BPCL and HPCL depots at Paradeep and there has been systematic extortion and harassment in the hands of a Union, namely, Purba Upakula Sramik Sangha and other individuals including the petitioner, who claims to be its President and it is being carried out with other antisocial elements and they were being demanded money ranging between Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- when the so-called Union is to collect Rs.30/- per oil tanker and on refusal to pay the same, they have been subjected to physical assault. On the basis of such complaint and on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur dated 14th October, 2025 and upon a direction received by the P.S. concerned, Paradeep P.S. Case No.308 dated 17th October, 2025 was registered.

2.3. According to the petitioner, the allegations as per the FIRs are false, baseless and he is in no way connected with the alleged incidents. It is also alleged that the implication of the petitioner is on the basis of confessional statements of the accused persons nabbed at the spot and the police without proper investigation registered the cases in order to harass him. According to the petitioner, except for the disclosures made by the accused persons and the allegations levelled, in absence of any material revealing his

implication, he is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Paradeep P.S. Case Nos.310 of 2025, 309 of 2025 and 308 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case Nos.1009 of 2025, 1008 of 2025 and 1007 of 2025.

3. Heard Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State.

4. Perused the affidavits filed by both the sides. A comprehensive affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating therein the details of the criminal cases pending and disposed of and the same is gone through.

5. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is having 18 other criminal cases excluding the present one. Referring to an additional affidavit dated 9th March, 2026, Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate would submit that in respect of two cases, the petitioner has been acquitted; in four cases, there has been final reports filed; one case has abated on the death of the informant; in four other cases, amicable settlements have been reached at with affidavits filed by the informants; and the other cases are pending disposal, wherein, in some, he has been granted interim protection and that he being a Union leader, with any such allegations of involvement on the strength of disclosure of the co-accused persons is eligible and entitled to pre-arrest bail pending investigation. It is further submitted that the FIR in Paradeep P.S. Case

No.310 of 2025 does not reveal proper identity of the informants though they claimed themselves as the drivers and the helpers of the oil tankers. The further submission is that the complaint dated 14th October, 2025 was entertained and a case has been registered on 17th October, 2025 in Paradeep P.S. Case No.308 of 2025 with so much of delay. The contention is that the allegation therein regarding extortion is from the drivers and helpers whose identities are not revealed in the FIR and under the above circumstances, the petitioner, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the local police in connection therewith and also in Paradeep P.S. Case No.309 of 2025 should be granted protection being the President of a registered Union which is involved in looking after the wellbeing of its members.

6. The State filed an affidavit stating therein that there is ample evidence regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the above noted cases and that apart, he is having a number of antecedents. Referring to a statement of a driver and the informant, who lodged the FIR in ABLAPL No.1489 of 2026 along with others, it is pleaded that the petitioner is a local goon and is directly involved in extortion. It is alleged further that the petitioner is threatening the oil tanker drivers in clear violation of this Court's orders in CRLMC Nos.4473, 4478 & 4480 of 2025. Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State refers to the affidavit and contends that the petitioner has number of criminal cases to his credit and is possessed of bad reputation in the

locality and has also been proceeded with by notice in Crl. Misc. Case No.112 of 2024 initiated by the Executive Magistrate and therein, a bond and surety for an amount of Rs.1 lac was executed by him on 20th March, 2024 in terms of Section 110 Cr.P.C. Referring to the affidavit dated 10 th March, 2026, Ms. Sahu, learned AGA would further submit that the conduct and influence of the petitioner has created a deep sense of fear psychosis among peace loving citizens and have severely disrupted public peace and tranquility in the area and even for that, there has been GD Entry Nos.10 and 18 at Paradeep Model P.S. and Abhayachandrapur P.S. respectively. It is alleged that due to fear of the petitioner and his hired goons, no one lodged any FIR against him and he is history-sheeter and his file is maintained by the Collector and Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur and also District Intelligence Bureau, inasmuch as, an anti-social history-sheet has been opened against him at Paradeep Model P.S., the details of which, may be produced for Court's perusal if it is desired, hence, therefore, he is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is under interim protection by orders dated 29th October, 2025 in the CRLMCs. Recently, by order dated 3rd February, 2026, the petitioner was directed to be released upon his surrender before the court of learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujang in connection with G.R. Case No.1235 of 2025 while disposing of ABLAPL No.641 of 2026. From the comprehensive affidavit, it is evident that

the petitioner has multiple criminal cases but in Paradeep P.S. Case No.88 of 2017 and Kujang P.S. Case No.22 of 2010, the petitioner is claimed to have been acquitted and in Kujang P.S. Case No.17 and 19 of 2010, Paradeep P.S. Case No.198 of 2019 and 109 of 2020, final reports have been submitted and there is no denial to the same by the State. In some cases, it is claimed that there is an amicable settlement between the parties. In respect of other cases, it is admitted to be pending. As against the above facts, the Court is to consider whether the petitioner should be granted pre-arrest bail which is strongly opposed by the State.

8. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that in a case where the offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years, in view of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. CBI and another (2022) 10 SCC 51, notice shall have to be issued in terms of Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. It is contended that such compliance under Section 35(3) BNSS is a statutory mandate and there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner's arrest is necessary in order to prevent him from tampering the evidence or that he is likely to abscond from the local limits of P.S., hence, he should be granted pre-arrest bail notwithstanding multiple FIRs and cases registered. The further contention is that the petitioner was not found directly involved and hence, according to Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate, there is no incriminating material except confessional statements of the co-accused persons

while in police custody and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Tofan Singh Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31, it is hit by Section 23 of the BSA and hence, holds no evidentiary value and therefore, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. As there is no flight risk involved and the petitioner is a local resident, it is contended that the demand for anticipatory bail by him should go unopposed directing release on any such terms and conditions imposed besides cooperating with the police in investigation as and when necessary. Apart from the above case laws, host of other citations have been relied upon and referred to by Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate to finally contend that the petitioner is a Union leader and not directly involved in any of the cases registered, hence, is entitled to pre-arrest bail.

9. In so far as Paradeep P.S. Case No.309 dated 17th October, 2025 is concerned, admittedly, the alleged incident had taken place in the month of May, 2025. According to Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State, a case was registered only on the intervention of the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur and hence, the delay. In Paradeep P.S. Case No.310 of 2025, the incident was concerning recovery of stolen diesel from the accused persons and it is alleged that it was being done by a syndicate and with the influence of the petitioner and others whose names are mentioned therein. As to Paradeep P.S. Case No.308 dated 17th October, 2025, it is shown to have been registered on a

complaint received from the drivers and helpers of oil tankers, who are being demanded of money for higher amount as against the Union's slip for Rs.30/- and therein the name of the petitioner has been mentioned being the President along with other office bearers, namely, General Secretary and Secretary of the Union. The allegation is about extortion of money by the petitioner and other accused persons. But it is contended that the Union is a registered one and involved in providing financial assistance to the drivers with a Trust in place and while claiming so, certain documents of Paradeep Tanker Drivers Welfare Trust have been produced. It is claimed that the petitioner is entitled to parity since co-accused persons in ABLAPL No.13139 of 2025 are on bail, as he is implicated in Paradeep P.S. Case No.309 of 2025 with identical allegations and thus, entitled to same relief. The delay of five months is also a ground demanding pre-arrest bail of the petitioner in respect of Paradeep P.S. Case No.309 dated 17th October, 2025. The contention is that apart from parity, since there is delay in lodging of one of the reports in respect of the incident dated 11th May, 2025 and in absence of prima facie case when the allegations are omnibus and lack of specific role being alleged and as such, there is no custodial interrogation necessary, the petitioner being a local and President of a Union, hence, unlikely to flee and in view of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) with emphasis that bail is the rule, jail is an exception, he should be granted bail in terms of Section 482 BNSS.

10. Admittedly, in one of the cases, this Court, while entertaining a similar plea for anticipatory bail, directed the petitioner to surrender before the court concerned for being released with suitable conditions by order dated 3rd February, 2026 in ABLAPL No.641 of 2026. It has been alleged that there has been suppression of real facts regarding antecedent for the claim that no criminal cases registered against him is of recent origin. It was for the State to apprise the Court regarding the details of the antecedents. Nonetheless, the petitioner has not been granted pre-arrest bail therein but instead was directed to surrender for being released with conditions that he shall attend the P.S. and report the I.O. once in a fortnight and to continue to do so, till the investigation is over. In the CRLMCs by orders dated 29th October, 2025, interim protection has been granted to the petitioner and others.

11. In respect of someone being a Union leader, who is involved in multiple cases, this Court is to ascertain whether bail is to be granted to the petitioner. If there is systemic aberration and continuous misconduct, the Courts are generally inclined to view it as a potential threat to a society. When the role of a Union leader is alleged even though he is not directly involved, allegations may surface that the mischief has been committed on his instigation or by a conspiracy fueled by him. In such a situation, the Court is to examine the materials on record and also the gravity of the offences alleged against him. If the FIRs involve non-

bailable or allegations regarding serious or violent activities under the influence of the leader of a Union, the Courts are less likely to grant pre-arrest bail as the individual liberty must yield to the societal interest. The Court is also to consider that there may be need of custodial interrogation to uncover the conspiracy behind the actions alleged and in that case, bail is more likely to be denied. The Court is also to consider the fact that whether there is any political vendetta alleged and could possibly be a reason behind implication of someone against whom multiple FIRs are lodged. In summary, if multiple FIRs lodged show a sustained organized pattern and the other accused persons as followers acted on behalf of the principal accused being a leader of a Union, the Courts are likely to view him as the main architect of the disturbances alleged therein.

12. As to the settled law, the Apex Court in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vrs. State of Punjab (1980)2 SCC 565 held that an individual seeking anticipatory bail must have a legitimate and reasonable basis rather than merely a vague fear or suspicion of arrest and he must demonstrate a reason to believe about his arrest for a non-bailable offence and this belief must not be unreasonable. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vrs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2011 SC 312, it has been held and reaffirmed that the concept of bail is fundamentally rooted in the protection of an individual liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India and that bail should not be denied arbitrarily in pre- conviction incarceration must be approached with caution emphasizing the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception and finally observed that denial of bail is justified only in exceptional cases where there is a tangible risk of misuse. In Sushila Aggarwal and others Vrs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another AIR 2020 SC 831, the Apex Court further emphasized that the Courts should consider the facts of each case and must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is genuine apprehension of arrest before granting anticipatory bail and in appropriate cases may also impose conditions as deemed necessary and therein relied on the decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra). Being alive to the position of law discussed hereinbefore, the Court is to examine the plea of the petitioner as to whether he has genuine apprehension of arrest and whether, a case is made out for his anticipatory bail.

13. Being a Union leader, this Court finds that many criminal cases have been registered against him but with the allegation of extortion, assault etc. In the cases registered in which the petitioner is demanding pre-arrest bail, on a reading of the FIRs lodged, nowhere, it is revealed that the petitioner to be directly involved. One of the FIRs is of the month of May, 2025 but a case was registered on 17 th October, 2025 and the explanation offered by the State is that it was possible only with the intervention of the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur. Whether the

petitioner was behind the scene and under his influence, the other accused persons committed the crime for the alleged incidents is to be unearthed during investigation but the fact remains, it was for the action on the report lodged five months later leading to the registration of Paradeep P.S. Case No.309 dated 17th October, 2025. In two other cases, the complaints are by the drivers and the helpers of the oil tankers and it is also against the office bearers of the Union including the petitioner for illegal collection of money through slips issued to them and recovery of diesel allegedly removed from the tankers but nowhere, it has been alleged that the petitioner was present at the spot when the alleged incidents took place. Regarding Paradeep P.S. Case No.310 dated 17th October, 2025, the recovery is alleged against one Rajesh Samal and Brundaban Behera, who during interrogation, confessed having committed theft of diesel but claimed that it was being done at the instance of the syndicate members under the influence of the petitioner and so many others including the office bearers of the Union which is again on the disclosure made by them.

14. Considering the above facts revealed from the record and submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, since there are number of criminal cases against the petitioner whose involvement is alleged indirectly or as a leader of a Union by remaining behind the screen disclosed by other accused persons, a claim which is needed to be enquired into and investigated upon and the fact that he is a

local and not outsider and there is remote possibility of him absconding and keeping in view the settled law discussed earlier with reference to the case laws cited and in particular, the law elucidated in Sushila Aggarwal (supra), which allows interim protection in certain cases even when not inclined to accede to the request of pre-arrest bail, this Court is of the view that he is no doubt alleged to be involved in the incidents reported but such involvement is required to be investigated upon by the local police in absence of any direct evidence pointing towards him but instead of a blanket order, as against the aforesaid backdrop, he should be protected against immediate arrest for a specified period with conditions fixed so as to facilitate such investigation in right direction primarily to unearth whether it was him who encouraged others to commit the crime being the mastermind. Such is the view of the Court for the reason that save and except the allegations in the FIRs and the confessional statements and disclosures made by the co- accused persons, the record suggests no direct involvement of the petitioner vis-a-vis the incidents reported.

15. Accordingly, it is ordered.

16. In the result, ABLAPLs are disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with Paradeep P.S. Case Nos.310 of 2025, 309 of 2025 and 308 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case Nos.1009 of 2025, 1008 of 2025 and 1007 of 2025 respectively pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C.(P),

Kujang for a period of six weeks from today for the reasons stated hereinabove with a condition that he shall cooperate in the investigation therein and to attend the P.S. once in seven days' time without default.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok