Recently, the Orissa High Court refused to release five persons accused of selling spurious liquor that allegedly claimed five lives and left several others hospitalised. Emphasising the gravity of the allegations and the broader impact on society, the Court held that the nature of the accusations and the loss of innocent lives weighed decisively against the grant of bail at this juncture.
The case arose from an incident in which multiple villagers reportedly fell ill after consuming liquor allegedly sold by the accused. Although they initially received treatment at a local Community Healthcare Centre, their condition deteriorated, necessitating referral to a tertiary care hospital. Five people eventually died during treatment, while several others suffered serious illness. An FIR was registered against the accused under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, alleging sale and supply of spurious liquor. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the accused approached the High Court seeking bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Petitioners contended that they were not responsible for the deaths and asserted that the deceased had died due to causes unrelated to the consumption of liquor. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on a viscera report issued by the CFSL, Kolkata, which reportedly did not detect any poisonous or toxic substance in the bodies of the deceased.
One of the petitioners, who was a village headman, claimed that he had no direct role in selling or supplying liquor and was being implicated merely on account of his association with the other accused. It was argued that in the absence of direct allegations against him, continued incarceration was unwarranted.
Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed that “What is relevant at this stage is that five persons suffered death and some persons suffered illness after consuming liquor sold by the co-accused persons and there is allegation against the petitioners for either selling the liquor to some of the villagers without any authority or supplying the same to vendors-cum-co-accused persons for selling it.”
The Court further noted that the deceased persons had fallen ill after consuming liquor allegedly sourced from the accused and later died due to multi-organ failure. The Court held that “In view of the discussions of facts and considering the role of each of the petitioners together with tragic death of five innocent persons and number of persons suffering from illness after consuming liquor allegedly sold by some of the petitioners and taking into account the impact of death of innocent villagers after consuming liquor on the society and trial having not yet commenced, it would not be proper to grant bail to the persons who are allegedly selling or supplying the liquor…”
However, with respect to the village headman, the Court noted the absence of direct material pointing to his prima facie culpability and observed that his role stood on a different footing, particularly in light of the lack of criminal antecedents.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court rejected the bail pleas of the accused allegedly involved in selling or supplying spurious liquor linked to the deaths. At the same time, the Court carved out a distinction in favour of the village headman, observing that the materials on record did not disclose direct involvement warranting continued denial of bail.
Case Title: Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @ Pabana Sahu and others vs. State of Odisha
Case No.: BLAPL Nos. 9883 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Gourishankar Satapathy
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advs. B.K. Raj, R.N. Rout, A. Tripathy, S.K. Pradhan
Advocate for the Respondent: Addl. PP M.R. Patra
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
