Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Subhakanta Nayak @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 13 October, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      ABLAPL No.11577 of 2025

         1. Subhakanta Nayak @ ....           Petitioners
            Gudu
         2. Sankhadatta Malik @
            Haklan Malik
         3. Makar Sahoo @
            Maku
                               Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Advocate
                                  -versus-

         State of Odisha                ....      Opposite Party
                                             Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA

                             CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                                   ORDER
Order                            13.10.2025
No.
01.     1.     Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and
        learned counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.586 of 2025 pending on the file of learned JMFC, Pattamundai, Kendrapara, Dist-Kendrapara, arising out of Pattamundai P.S. Case No.268 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 25, 27 of Arms Act.

Page 1 of 4

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that taking into account the nature of allegations, the Petitioners may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 4 So far as the criminal proclivity of the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel that he has been falsely implicated in four other cases apart from the case at hand arising out of the self-same incident and that ought not to weigh with this Court in considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

6. This Court perused the statements of the injured and the injury report.

7. Taking into account the nature of allegations qua the Petitioner No.1, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail in respect of Petitioner No.1. However, it is directed that the Petitioner No.1 (Subhakanta Nayak @ Gudu) may surrender before the learned JMFC, Pattamundai, Kendrapara, Dist-Kendrapara in connection with the aforementioned case within one month from today.

In the event of his surrender and motion for bail, the same be considered by the learned JMFC, Page 2 of 4 Pattamundai, Kendrapara, Dist-Kendrapara on merits, in the first hour of the day.

In the event of rejection of the prayer for bail by the learned JMFC, Pattamundai, Kendrapara, Dist-Kendrapara, the Petitioner is at liberty to move the higher forum for bail in the second hour on the same day.

8. On being so moved, the higher forum is requested to make an endeavor to dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day.

The case diary shall be made available to the concerned courts to facilitate disposal of the bail application of the Petitioner and learned JMFC, Pattamundai, Kendrapara, Dist-Kendrapara is called upon to transmit the case record to the higher forum in the second hour expeditiously in the event of rejection of the bail application by him.

Ground of parity, if any, may be considered by the learned court(s) below.

9. Accordingly, the ABLAPL in respect of Petitioner No.1 stands disposed of.

10. So far as the ABLAPL in respect of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is concerned, taking into account the nature of allegations and the punishment prescribed, this Court directs that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Page 3 of 4 Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (Sankhadatta Malik @ Haklan Malik and Makar Sahoo @ Maku) shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper subject to verification of criminal antecedent of similar nature.

11. If it comes to the fore that the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have any such criminal antecedent, this order shall not be given effect to.

12. It is needless to state that the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

13. Accordingly, the ABLAPL in respect of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 stands disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JINA DIGAL Page 4 of 4 Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Oct-2025 10:54:00