Orissa High Court
Jitendra Sahu @ Nilu & vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party(S) on 27 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.3220 of 2026
Jitendra Sahu @ Nilu & .... Petitioner(s)
another
Mr. Jugala Kishore Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No.
27.04.2026
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection
with Angul Sadar P.S. Case No.450 of 2023, corresponding
to G.R. Case No.666 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned
J.M.F.C, Banarpal for the alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 341/ 385/ 294/ 323/ 324/ 427/ 506/
34 of IPC have 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 Petitioners under Section 482 of the BNSS (erstwhile
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.) seeking direction for pre-arrest
Page 1 of 6
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
1
vide order dated 26.04.2021 passed in ABLAPL No.5283 of 2021
2
2020 SCC OnLine SC 2108
Page 2 of 6
by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge
before the High Court. Second, this 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 section3
1986 SCC Online Guj 56Page 3 of 6
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 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
Page 4 of 6
subordinate Court first, then he/she may seekhis/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 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.
Page 5 of 6
9. In view of the above, the Petitioners are 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
Petitioners.
10. In view of the above observation and direction, the
ABLAPL is disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Suchitra
Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 6
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 30-Apr-2026 11:57:25