Manash Kumar Mallick vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party(S) on 4 May, 2026

Orissa High Court

Manash Kumar Mallick vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party(S) on 4 May, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     ABLAPL No.4760 of 2026
        Manash Kumar Mallick                   Petitioner(s)
                              ....
                                Mr. Sk. Joned Faiz, Advocate
                                     -versus-
        State of Odisha                   ....     Opposite Party(s)

                                                Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC

               CORAM:
               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                    ORDER

Order No.
04.05.2026

01.

SPONSORED

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel

for the State.

3. The Petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with

Cyber Crime & Economic Offences, UPD Cuttack P.S. Case No.24

of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No.320 of 2026, pending in

the Court of learned J.M.F.C-I, Cuttack for the alleged

commission of offences punishable under Sections 319(2) of the
BNS, 2023, read with Section 66(C) of the IT (Amendment) Act,
2008 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the BNSS for
release on pre-arrest bail.

4. Without going into the merits of the present petition filed by

the Petitioner under Section 482 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section

Page 1 of 5
438 of the Cr.P.C.) seeking direction for pre-arrest bail, this Court

is to observe first that whether the petition under Section 482 of

the BNSS is maintainable before this Court without exhausting

remedy under the said provision before the Court of Sessions

which has concurrent jurisdiction.

5. This Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the case of

Mitu Das and others v. State of Odisha1 observing that

ordinarily, in case of petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, the

remedy before the Court of Sessions ought to be exhausted

before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Jagdeo Prasad v. State of

Bihar and Ors.2 has categorically held as follows:

“6. However, before parting, we do wish to express our
sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court
has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent
jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for
entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this
Court has time and again observed that High Court
should always encourage exhausting an
alternative/concurrent remedy before directly
interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of
all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a
round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this

1
vide order dated 26.04.2021 passed in ABLAPL No.5283 of 2021
2
2020 SCC OnLine SC 2108
Page 2 of 5
approach provides the High Court an opportunity to
assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions
Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of
independently applying its mind from the first go.
Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for
directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading
the appellant-complainant as a party.

7. Having regard to the abovementioned facts and
circumstances of the case, the serious nature of the
allegations against accused respondents and the gravity
of the offences alleged, we are of the view that the High
Court was not justified in passing the impugned order
granting anticipatory bail to the accused respondents.”

7. In the case of Rameschandra Kashiram Vora & Ors. v. State

of Gujarat & Ors.3, wherein the High Court of Gujarat held as

follows:

“9…….I am in respectful agreement with the ratio of
these two cases. I am of the opinion that it would be a
sound exercise of judicial discretion not to entertain
each and every application for anticipatory bail directly
bypassing the Court of Session. Ordinarily, the Sessions
Court is nearer to the accused and easily accessible and
remedy of anticipatory bail is same and under same
section and there is no reason to believe that Sessions
Court will not act according to law and pass appropriate
orders. In a given case, if any accused is grieved, his
further remedy to approach the High Court is not barred

3
1986 SCC Online Guj 56

Page 3 of 5
and he may prefer a substantive application for
anticipatory bail under Section 438 or revision
application under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. to the
High Court and the High Court would have the benefit
of the reasons given by the Sessions Court. It would be
only in exceptional cases or special circumstances that
the High Court may entertain such an application
directly and these exceptional and” special
circumstances must really be exceptional and should
have valid and cogent reasons for by passing the
Sessions Court and approaching the High Court…….”

8. In view of the above discussion, the applicant should

approach the Sessions Court first then to the High Court like that

is adopted in Section 483 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 of

the Cr.P.C.). The reasons for approaching the Court of Sessions

first may be due to the following:

i) Whenever concurrent jurisdiction is provided under

the statute simultaneously in two courts of which one is

superior to the other, then it is appropriate that the party

should apply to the subordinate Court first, then he/she

may seek his/her remedy in the High Court;

ii) The Sessions Court will always be nearer and

accessible court to the parties. Moreover, considering the

work load of the High Courts in the country and the

cases of this nature are nothing but contributing to

heavy pendency of cases. The applications under Section
Page 4 of 5
483 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.)

often fail to get the required attention because of the

docket arising out of such applications filed under

Section 482 of the BNSS (Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.)

directly in the High Court by passing the Courts of

Sessions;

iii) The grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail requires

appreciation, scrutiny of facts and perusal of the entire

materials on record. In this context, if the Sessions Court

has already applied its mind and passed the appropriate

order, it would be easy for the High Court to look into

or have a cursory glance of the observation made by the

Sessions Court and dispose of the case with expedition.

9. In view of the above, the Petitioner is granted interim

protection for a period of three weeks to approach the Court of

Sessions for seeking similar relief and the Court of Sessions shall

list this matter as early as possible before the expiry of three

weeks of protection granted to the Petitioner.

10. In view of the above observation and direction, the ABLAPL

is disposed of.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Suchitra

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 5 of 5
Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 07-May-2026 16:43:39