Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 8 April, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Dibakar Behera
(In BLAPL No.11377 of 2025)
Sanjaya Behera
(In BLAPL No.11998 of 2025)
Manoj Behera
(In BLAPL No.12000 of 2025) ... Petitioners
Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate
(in BLAPL No.11377 of 2025)
Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate
(in BLAPL Nos.11998 & 12000 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:08.04.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. These are applications U/S.483 of the BNSS, 2023 by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Purushottampur P.S. Case No.240 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 216 of 2025 (G.R. Case No. 238 of 2025) pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatrapur/ JMFC, Purusottampur, being BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 1 of 11 charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.103(1)/189(2)/191(2)/ 61(2)/191(3)/190 of BNS r/w. Sec.25/27 of Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Sumanta Mahapatra, along with co-accused persons by conjointly assaulting him with deadly weapons in prosecution of their common object by forming an unlawful assembly.
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner-Dibakar Behera in BLAPL No. 11377 of 2025 prays to grant bail to the petitioner not only for non-compliance of the provisions of Sec. 47 of BNSS/ Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India for non-furnishing grounds of arrest to the petitioner- Dibakar Behera, but also submits on merit to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that the deceased had not whispered the name of the assailant, however, the complainant/informant named the petitioner in the FIR, although the same appears to be improbable because the alleged occurrence took place in the night and there must be darkness at the so called place of occurrence. Mr. Katikia further submits that the FIR averments do not BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 2 of 11 disclose the time of the occurrence, but the petitioner and others have been stated to have allegedly committed the crime which is unbelievable, since the mode and manner of implication of the petitioner is highly questionable. He further submits that it was uncertain for seeing the occurrence by the informant, who was present at a distance from the alleged scene of occurrence, but the informant has said to have seen the occurrence, which in the circumstance is highly improbable and the police being pressurized by the local political party has falsely indicted the petitioner in this case and thereby, in such scenario, keeping the petitioner in confinement would curtail his personal liberty without any reasonable ground. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Katkia prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
2.1. On the other hand, Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Sanjaya Behera and Manoj Behera in BLAPL Nos. 11998 & 12000 of 2025 submits that the name of these two petitioners do not figure out in the FIR and they have been implicated in this case subsequently by manufacturing the BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 3 of 11 statement of witnesses Balaram Behera, Rama Chandra Lenka and Kumar Swain, which is highly unbelievable because although the complainant knows the petitioners, he has not named them in the FIR. Mr. Sahoo further submits that the petitioners are in confinement since long, but charge sheet has already been submitted in the meantime and no adverse report is forthcoming against the petitioners about pendency of any criminal case against them and, therefore, in the circumstance, the petitioners may kindly be granted bail. 2.2. In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP by taking this Court through the materials placed on record, submits that the petitioner-Dibakar Behera has not only been named in the FIR, but also he is the main author of the crime and he has got seven criminal antecedent to his credit and he having been seen by the informant in killing the deceased, his name has been clearly figured out in the FIR and the other petitioners having been seen by the eye witnesses for committing the crime, cannot be considered at this stage to be innocent, rather the BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 4 of 11 petitioners being prima facie found involved in a gruesome murder of the deceased, they don't deserve to be released on bail. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Satpathy prays to reject the bail applications of the petitioners.
3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners and others for committing murder of the deceased by conjointly assaulting him with sharp cutting weapon in prosecution of their common object after forming an unlawful assembly. Additionally, the name of the petitioner-Dibakar Behera finds place in the FIR as one of the assailants, but the other two petitioners have allegedly been seen by the eye witnesses for committing the crime along with others in prosecution of their common object. A careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record, the petitioner Dibakar Behera is found to have the following criminal antecedents: -
1. Rambha PS Case No. 731, dated 22.10.2023, U/S. 147/148/302/326/307/149 IPC.
BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 5 of 11
2. Rambha PS Case No. 464, dated 07.08.2024, U/S.126(2)/76/115(2)/351(3)/3(5) BNS r/w. Sec.25(1)(a) Arms Act.
3. Purushottampur PS Case No.449, dated 05.07.2024, U/S. 296/351(3) BNS.
4. Purushottampur PS Case No.471, dated 16.07.2024 U/S.296/351(3)/3(5) BNS.
5. Purushottampur PS Case No.738, dated 04.11.2024, U/S. 126(2)/296/109/3(5) BNS r/w. Sec.25(1)(a)/27(1) Arms Act.
6. Purushottampur PS Case No.764, dated 13.11.2024, U/S.296/351(2)/3(5) BNS.
7. Purushottampur PS Case No.787, dated 26.11.2024 U/S. 296/351(2)/3(5) BNS.
4. In a criminal case, while considering the bail application of an accused, the criminal antecedent of such accused cannot be brushed aside and it is one of the factors to be considered in adjudicating his bail application. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision of the Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vrs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another; (2012) 9 SCC 446, wherein at paragraph-30 it has been held as under:
"30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 6 of 11 conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused.
4.1. In Neeru Yadav vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh & another; (2014) 16 SCC 508, the Apex Court in Paragraph-17 has held as follows: -
"17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the 2nd respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinize every aspect and not capriciously record that the 2nd respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order clearly exposes the non- application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the 2nd respondent has been charge sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside."
BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 7 of 11
5. Moreover, the IO in the charge sheet has stated that there was enmity between the deceased and the petitioner-Dibakar Behera and accordingly, two cases in Purushottampur P.S. Case No.271 of 2024 and Purushottampur P.S. Case No. 764 of 2024 have been registered against the petitioner-Dibakar Behera for threatening the deceased. It is also found from the record that in order to harass the complainant, the petitioner and his family members had threatened one Susanta Behera to close down his shop running in a rented accommodation by assaulting him and thereby, Purushottampur P.S. Case No.738 of 2024 has been registered against the petitioner-Dibakar Behera, but the petitioner had allegedly remained elusive to the police in that case.
6. Even otherwise, coming to the plea of the petitioner-Dibakar Behera for non-compliance of the provision of Sec.47 of BNSS, it appears that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 16.09.2025 and forwarded to the Court on that day, but no such plea was taken by the BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 8 of 11 petitioner at the time of his forwarding, however, it is claimed by the Investigating Agency that the said provision of Sec. 47 of BNSS has been duly complied with in this case. Further, a perusal of the arrest memo prepared in this case would go to disclose that the grounds of arrest has been communicated to the petitioner-Dibakar Behera by stating therein that as prima facie evidence U/S.103(1)/3(5) of BNS is well made against the accused-petitioner and such arrest memo is signed by the petitioner-Dibakar Behera himself. Much emphasis has been put for non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest to hold non-compliance of the provision of Sec.47 of BNSS, but this Court considers it apt to refer to paragraph-68 of the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs. State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500 wherein the Apex Court has held 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 BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 9 of 11 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."
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and on going through the arrest memo of the petitioner-Dibakar Behera and taking into account the requirement of law U/S. 47 of BNSS on the face of the aforesaid ruling of the Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), this Court does not find infraction in compliance of provision of Sec.47 of BNSS in terms of the ruling of the Apex Court as referred to above, since the petitioner-Dibakar Behera herein was arrested only on 16.09.2025 at 8.30A.M., but the judgment rendered by the Apex Court was on 06.11.2025.
8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the opinion of the doctor as to the cause of death of the deceased in the postmortem report together with 13 injuries as found on the person of the BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Page 10 of 11 deceased in the postmortem report and taking into account the eye witnesses' account keeping in view the statement of witnesses Balaram Behera, Rama Chandra Lenka and Kumar Swain and last but not the least, taking into account the serious criminal antecedents of the petitioner-Dibakar Behera and the material witnesses having not yet been examined, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners at this stage.
9. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners Dibakar Behera (BLAPL No.11377 of 2025), Sanjaya Behera (BLAPL No. 11998 of 2025) and Manoj Behera (BLAPL No.12000 of 2025) stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately transmitted to the Court in seisin over the matter for reference.
(G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 8th day of April, 2026/S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL BLAPL Nos.11377, 11998 & 12000 of 2025 Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Page 11 of 11 Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Apr-2026 12:56:25