Rudra Narayan Mishra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 2818 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rudra Narayan Mishra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 24 March, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   BLAPL NO.1436 of 2026

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

   Rudra Narayan Mishra                   ...   Petitioner

                             -versus-

   State of Odisha                        ...   Opposite Party

   For Petitioner           : Mr. D. Nayak, Sr. Advocate
                              along with Ms. A. Mishra,
                              Advocate

   For Opposite Party       : Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP
                              Mr.B.R.Mohanty, Advocate for
                              informant

                           CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:24.03.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by

the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with

Keonjha Town PS Case No.974 of 2025 corresponding

to GR Case No.2184 of 2025 pending in the file of

learned SDJM, Keonjhar being charge sheeted for

commission of offence punishable U/S.108 of the BNS.

2. The present case against the Petitioner

arises out of an FIR in which it is alleged against the

Petitioner for remaining with the deceased in a

relationship and on the relevant date, the informant

received a phone call from one Mobile No. 700892252

stating himself to be Lecturer of the College of the

deceased to inform him that the deceased had suddenly

fallen down and shifted to DHH, Keonjhar. Accordingly,

the informant who is the uncle of the deceased rushed

to the Hospital only to find the dead body of the

deceased with cut mark at neck. It is alleged that the

Petitioner had committed murder of the deceased as he

was threatening to kill the deceased.

On this incident, FIR was lodged and basing on

such FIR, Keonjhar Town PS Case No. 974 of 2025 was

registered and the Petitioner was forwarded to the

Court for commission of offence punishable offence

U/S. 103 of BNS, but subsequently, after conclusion of

investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the

Petitioner for commission of offence U/S. 108 of BNS.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Dharanidhar

Nayak, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Ms.

Anwesha Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner

submits that the Petitioner is a lawyer, but he has been

falsely implicated in this case and even if the materials

are taken into consideration, since the Petitioner has

been charge sheeted for 108 of BNS, but he having not

abetted commission of suicide, the Petitioner can be

considered for grant of bail. Mr. Nayak further submits

that since the investigation has been completed

awaiting trial, it is for the Court to decide as to whether

the Petitioner would be released on bail or he would be

kept in confinement till conclusion of trial. It is also

submitted by Mr. Nayak that bail being the rule, the

Petitioner should not be detained in custody and bail

should not be withheld to him as a pre trial

punishment. Mr.Nayak further submits that although

the Petitioner and the deceased were staying together

in a live-in relationship, but the commission of suicide

by the deceased is beyond the knowledge and control

of the Petitioner and thereby, the Petitioner being an

innocent lawyer, he should not be detained further in

custody. Mr. Nayak further by relying upon the decision

in Prakash and others Vrs. State of Maharashtra

and another; 2024 INSC 1020 submits that the

Petitioner in this case has neither any intention to

instigate nor aid or abet the deceased to commit

suicide, but the Investigating Agency has failed to

reveal any prima facie case against the Petitioner for

commission of offence U/S. 108 of BNS and, therefore,

the further detention of the Petitioner in custody is

unwarranted and the Apex Court in similar

circumstance has quashed the charge framed against

the appellant in relied on case. On the aforesaid

submission, Mr. Nayak prays to grant bail to the

Petitioner.

3.1. On the contrary, Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan

Mohanty, learned counsel for the informant submits

that not only the Petitioner is prima facie involved in

this case, but also the deceased had sustained around

eight injuries on her person and the Petitioner being the

author of such injuries, the Petitioner should not be

extended with any leniency in the form of bail. Mr.

Mohanty accordingly, by inviting attention of the Court

to the PM report prays to reject the bail application of

the Petitioner.

3.2. In the same fashion, Mr. S.C. Pradhan,

learned Addl. PP by drawing attention of the Court to

the statement of the informant and other witnesses

submits that not only the Petitioner is found to have

assaulted the deceased, but also the Petitioner is the

reason behind death of the deceased and the PM report

revealing number of injuries on the person of the

deceased and the Petitioner being prima facie found to

have assaulted the deceased, the bail application of the

Petitioner may kindly be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that the

uncle of the deceased has lodged an FIR alleging

against the Petitioner for committing murder of the

deceased and the PM report of the deceased reveals

eight injuries on her person. The injuries detected on

the person of the deceased as described in the PM

report are extracted as under:-

"(i) There is a faint non-continuous patchy reddish brown pressure abrasion of total length 12 cm present on right antero-lateral neck of deceased in oblique manner it is deficient on left half of neck. It is situated above the thyroid cartilage level and passes about 7 cm below right angle of mandible Then gradually fades at nape of neck and at mid line at front of neck respectively Maximum width is 2 cm at right antero lateral neck;

(ii) There are 05 nos. of scratch abrasion of length varies from 2-5 cm present obliquely on left anterior neck. They appear reddish- brown in color;

(iii) There is an oval shaped contusion of size 3 cm x 2 cm present on upper inner quadrant of right-side breast located about 6 cm right to midline of chest;

(iv) Imprint abrasion of length 9 cm x 0.5 cm present on left upper chest horizontally overlapping the left clavicle bone;

(v) The thenar eminence of both side palms are contused;

(vi) Contusion of 1 cm x 1 cm present on inner aspect of left upper arm;

(vii) Contusion of 2 cm x 1.5 cm present on outer aspect of right upper thigh;

(viii) Contusion of 1 cm x 1 cm present on dorsal aspect of right forearm"

5. No doubt, it is stated in the charge sheet that

the IO made further query to the Autopsy Conducting

Doctor on receipt of the CE report only to find out the

opinion of autopsy surgeon as to cause of death of the

deceased to be on account of asphyxia and venous

congestion resulting from hanging, but it is found from

the Case Diary that the IO has sought for opinion to

query from Dr. Sunil Kumar Murmu, Associate Professor

Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology,

Dharanidhar Medical College & Hospital regarding cause

of death of the deceased, however, such final opinion

report is not available on record. Besides, the charge

sheet discloses that the external injuries under (ii) to

(viii) as stated in PM report are suggestive of physical

assault. It is also found from the Case Diary that the

CCTV installed in the spot house in question was

switched off during the time of occurrence with all

previous recording available in the DVR raising prima

facie suspicion against the petitioner. The seizure list

also indicates recovery of three broken parts of the

mobile phone from the dustbin of the room. No doubt,

the Petitioner has relied upon the decision in Prakash

and others(supra), but on a respectful consideration

of the same, it is found distinguishable from the facts

of the present case inasmuch as the relied on decision

was rendered against the order passed by the learned

trial Court refusing to discharge the accused and the

deceased therein had not sustained number of injuries

as in this case. True it is that, detail and meticulous

analysis of evidence and elaborate documentation on

merit should be avoided at the stage of consideration of

bail to the applicant, however, the Court has to

consider prima facie materials.

6. In the aforesaid facts and situation,

especially when the deceased was stated to be residing

with the Petitioner in a live-in relationship and she was

taken to Hospital with number of injuries detected on

her person and the Petitioner having allegedly residing

with the deceased in the same house with the CCTV of

the said house being switched off at the relevant time

of occurrence and final opinion regarding the cause of

death of the deceased having not yet been obtained

from the Associate Professor, it cannot be said that

there is no prima facie case against the Petitioner at

this stage. On a careful consideration of the materials

placed on record raises not only prima facie, but also

reasonable allegation against the Petitioner and the

allegation raised against the Petitioner being not for

any trivial allegation and the same being related to

death of a young woman and the said woman allegedly

being found in live-in relationship with the Petitioner

and the deceased having been found with the number

of injuries on different parts of the body and there

being allegation of the deceased and the Petitioner

residing together in the said house just before she was

brought dead to the Hospital, this Court does not

consider it proper to grant bail to the Petitioner at this

stage.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner

stand rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands

disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately

transmitted to the learned trial Court.

(G. Satapathy)

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th day of March, 2026/Priyajit