Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Orissa And Another on 6 July, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA Nos.517, 584, 596, 597, 801, 1075 of 2025
(An appeal U/S.14(A) of the SC & ST (POA) Act r/w
Sec.483 of BNSS).
Abhimanyu Mishra
(In CRLA No.517 of 2025)
Aniket Mishra
(In CRLA No.584 of 2025)
Subham Sharma
(In CRLA No.596 of 2025)
Varun Bhati @ Barun Bhati
(In CRLA No.597 of 2025)
Siddhant Sharma
(In CRLA No.801 of 2025)
Akash Poddar and another
(In CRLA No.1075 of 2025) ... Appellants
Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. A. Pradhan, Advocate
(in CRLA Nos.517, 584, 596, 597 & 801 of 2025)
Mr. D. Nayak, Sr. Advocate
along with Ms. A. Mishra, Advocate
(in CRLA No.1075 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Orissa and another ... Respondents
Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP
Mr. S.K. Jena, Advocate along with
Mr. D.R. Parida, Advocate for the informant
(in all these CRLAs)
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:06.07.2026(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. These criminal appeals U/S.14(A) of the SC
& ST (POA) Act r/w Sec.483 of 14-A(2) of the
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 1 of 16
Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act,
2016 (in short, “the Act”) in nature of bail are directed
against the impugned order dated
11.04.2025/10.07.2025 passed in Spl. GR Case No.40
of 2024 & 40/2 of 2024-2025 by which the learned 2nd
Addl. Sessions Judge, Samalpur has refused to grant
bail to the appellants in connection with Khetrarajpur
PS Case No.247 of 2024 for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 115(2)/ 126(2)/ 296/
109(1)/ 191(2)(3)/ 103(1)/ 190 of BNS r/w
Sec.3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Act, on the main
allegation of rioting being armed with lethal weapons,
such as stump, brick bat & wooden batten and
indiscriminately assaulting the deceased Badal Tandi
and other five injured persons namely Pramod
Mahananda, Rahul Mahananda, Pintu Singh, Niranjan
Deep and Rahul Mugri in prosecution of their common
object by taking advantage of their caste owing to a
dispute of throwing of fire-crackers towards the mother
of the appellant Subham Sharma.
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 2 of 16
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Debi Prasad
Dhal, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Mr.
Abhishek Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the transaction depicts a case of assault
and counter assault relating to throwing of fire-
crackers, but the deceased and injured persons were
the aggressors, which is evident from the appellants
suffering injuries on their persons in the transaction. It
is further submitted by Mr. Dhal that the arresting
officer while affecting arrest has failed to comply the
provision of Sec.47 of BNSS r/w Art.22(1) of the
Constitution of India which is evident from the arrest
memos of the appellants as the same do not contain a
single word with regard to furnishing of grounds of
arrest to the appellants. Mr. Dhal, further submits that
the name of the appellants does not figure out in the
FIR which contains only the name of the priest of
Vaishno Devi temple and some others, but the
appellants have been subsequently implicated in this
case and the deceased had suffered death subsequently
while undergoing treatment and thereby, no case U/S.
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 3 of 16
103 of BNS is attracted in this case. It is further
submitted that the appellants are in custody since
03.11.2024 and although the charge-sheet has been
submitted, but trial is yet to commence and keeping a
person in confinement without trial would definitely
amounts to deprivation of personal liberty. Accordingly,
Mr. Dhal prays to grant bail to the appellants.
2.1. Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Sr.
counsel who is being assisted by Ms. Anwesha Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No.1075 of
2025 submits that even for a moment taking into
account the prosecution case, it is not a case of
U/S.103 of BNS since there was assault and counter
assault for a petty dispute and the appellants, the
deceased and the injured persons were celebrating
Deepavali by exploding fire-crackers and in the course
of such transaction, one of the fire-cracker hits to the
mother of the one of the injured-appellant Subham
Sharma and thereby, there was scuffle and the assault
and counter assault not being by any weapon of
offence, but by cricket stump, brick bat and batten, and
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 4 of 16
this shows that there was neither any pre-meditation
nor any prior planning for assaulting the deceased &
injured persons and by no stretch of imagination, the
case against the appellants be considered for offence
U/S.103 of IPC. It is also brought to the notice of the
Court that the appellants have sustained certain
injuries on their person. On these submissions, Mr.
Nayak, prays to grant bail to the appellants.
2.2. On the contrary, Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned
Addl. PP by placing the statements of injured witnesses
submits that not only the appellants have attacked the
deceased and injured persons, but also they have
attacked them brutally and the brutality demonstrated
by them itself is a ground to reject the bail applications
of the appellants. Mr. Pradhan, further submits that
since the trial is yet to commence and the appellants
have the potential to influence the witnesses, the bail
application of the appellants may kindly be rejected by
dismissing these criminal appeals.
2.3. In addition, Mr. Sarat Kumar Jena, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, injured
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 5 of 16
Pramod Mahananda, Pintu Singh and wife of the
deceased Badal Tandi and representing Mr. Deepak
Ranjan Parida, learned counsel for the rest of the
injured persons; submits that this Court by way of an
order passed on 24.03.2025 in CRLA No.1310 of 2024
has refused bail to one of the co-accused Akash Poddar
on the ground that trial is yet to commence and the
appellants has got a potential to influence the witnesses
and the appellants having been found on materials on
record for assaulting the deceased and injured persons,
their bail applications may not be considered favorably.
Mr. Jena further submits that there are enough
materials against the appellants to refuse bail to them
since the appellants have not only attacked the
deceased, but also the injured persons and they having
attacked them with batten (wooden cudgel) and cricket
stumps have caused death to the deceased as well as
inflicted injuries to other injured persons and trial
having not yet commenced, there is every possibility
that the appellants may influence the trial by gaining
over the injured and witnesses and, therefore, the bail
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 6 of 16
applications of the appellants may kindly be rejected by
dismissing these criminal appeals.
3. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that FIR
has been registered against the priest of Vaishno Devi
Temple, Sambalpur and four others, but the appellants
have been implicated in this case on the basis of
materials collected during the investigation, however,
the FIR was lodged on 02.11.2024 for the incident
occurring at 10.30AM on 01.11.2024, but the materials
on record disclose that the deceased as injured was
taken into hospital immediately after the occurrence,
but he subsequently died after some days while
undergoing treatment, whereas not only Pramod
Mahananda, Rahul Mahananda, Pintu Singh, Niranjan
Deep and Rahul Mugri from the side of the informant
had sustained injuries, but also the appellants
Abhimanyu Mishra, Aniket Mishra, Siddhant Sharma,
Akash Poddar and two to three others have sustained
injuries on their persons. The materials on record
disclose attack on the deceased & injured persons by
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 7 of 16
means of stick, wicket stump, kick and fist blows. On
this incident, not only the present FIR has been
registered, but also a counter case has been lodged
against the informant side by the appellants side on
02.11.2024 in Khetrarajpur PS Case No.251 of 2024.
The appellants are in judicial custody since 03.11.2024,
but even after submission of charge-sheet, the trial is
yet to commence and the appellants have already
suffered incarceration period for just little more than
one and half years.
4. Furthermore, the PM report of the
deceased discloses three external wounds, such as (i)
one stapled wound surgically made having 56 numbers
of metal pins over the head between frontal region
going over the vertex then over the right occipital area
up to the right temporal region, (ii) stitched wound
having one stitch present on upper lip and (iii) stitched
wound having one stitch present on mid of fronto
parietal area of head. The PM report of the deceased
also discloses one external injury of abraded contusion
of size 3cm X 3cm with black colour dry partially fallen
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 8 of 16
off scab present on left temporal area 4cm above left
ear pinna and the external wound no. (i) to (iii) are
opined to be caused as a result of surgical procedure as
a part of treatment procedure. It is further opined in
the PM report that the external injury (i) and internal
injuries could be due to hard and blunt force and
contact with rough surface or object collectively fatal in
ordinary course. The final opinion as to cause of death
of the deceased has been opined to be due to head
injury and complications and the external injury no.(i)
is suggestive of 1 to 2 weeks old prior to death.
5. In addition, the materials on record do not
disclose anything to suggest that the incident took
place with pre-meditation or prior planning, rather it
was a circumstance of transaction on the spur of
moment, however, one innocent person has lost his life
and some others suffered injury. Besides, grant of bail
to an accused should not be confused with his acquittal
since grant of bail is a transfer of the custody of the
accused from law to surety and the persons charged
with crime, if not having any past criminal history or he
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 9 of 16
being not a flight risk, bail can still be granted to him,
even though there is a prima facie case, if the situation
so demands. In this case, neither the prosecution nor
the informant or injured has brought to the notice of
the Court that any of the appellant is having any
criminal antecedent nor the prosecution has brought
any materials on record to suggest that the appellants
would pose flight risk, if released on bail. The
apprehension of the informant and the injured persons
for influencing the witnesses by the appellants can be
curbed by imposing appropriate conditions. Right to
speedy trial is also a fundamental right, but such right
must be balanced with the accusations inasmuch as a
person can be kept in confinement in accordance with
the law, which advocates and prescribes the right to
liberty and it is stated in Article 21 that no person shall
be deprived of his life or liberty except according to the
procedure establish by the law and, therefore, keeping
a person in confinement on a criminal charge cannot be
considered as a deprivation of liberty, but when the
liberty is curtailed for a long time without assurance of
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 10 of 16
trial, it would definitely amount to deprivation of
liberty.
6. In this case, the appellants have also taken
the plea of non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS as a
ground for grant of bail and accordingly, the response
of the Arresting Officer was sought for by this Court
and the SDPO, Sambalpur has filed two affidavits since
one affidavit was found deficient for the queries of the
Court because in the first affidavit, the SDPO has not
responded to all the queries of the Court, however, on
careful perusal of the second affidavit dated 17.12.2025
as sworn in by the SDPO, it reveals that the SI, Sanjay
Kumar Sahoo while arresting the accused persons have
informed the accused persons about the allegation
made in the FIR and the statement of complainant
recorded U/S.161 of CrPC and the accused persons
being fully aware about the reasons/grounds of arrest
have put their signatures in the arrest memo
respectively. Similarly, in the first affidavit, the said
SDPO has simply stated that the accused persons have
been arrested by the previous SI Sanjay Kumar Sahoo
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 11 of 16
on 03.11.2024 at 11.30AM after informing them the
grounds of arrest by obtaining their signatures on the
memo of arrest and Court surrender memo in the
presence of the witnesses. Neither in the first affidavit
nor in the second affidavit, the SDPO has annexed any
document to evidence that the grounds of arrest has
been communicated to the appellants, but the arrest
memos produced by the appellants itself disclose that it
is a printed template format, but no grounds of arrest
there has been enumerated at paragraph-8 of such
arrest memos and it has been stated therein that the
arrested person after being informed about the grounds
of arrest and his legal rights was duly taken into
custody, but there was no mention of any grounds of
arrest in the arrest memos. No doubt the arrest memo
contains the signature of the arrested person as well as
arresting officer, but the mode and manner of
communication of the grounds of arrest has not been
disclosed either in the affidavits or in the arrest memos.
Further, the affidavits also do not disclose the mode
and manner of communication of the grounds of arrest.
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 12 of 16
What has been communicated and how it has been
communicated has not been stated either in the
affidavits or in the arrest memos, but law cast a
constitutional duty on the arresting officer to inform the
arrestee the grounds of arrest. It is also true that in a
very recent judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs.
State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500, the Apex
Court has made certain guidelines and one of such
guidelines is communication of grounds of arrest in
writing to the arrestee in the language he/she
understands and such communication, if not possible
immediately after the arrest, it must be within two
hours prior to production of such accused before the
magistrate. It is also made further clear therein that
the written communication of grounds of arrest in the
language the arrestee understands would govern the
arrest prospectively, but this Court is of the considered
opinion that total non-compliance of the provision of
Sec.47 of BNSS is impermissible inasmuch as the same
is made mandatory in Art.22(1) of the Constitution of
India.
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 13 of 16
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and taking into account the nature and
gravity of the offences as alleged against the appellants
vis-Ã -vis the accusations sought to be brought against
them and keeping in view the stage of the case and the
trial having not yet commenced, even after submission
of charge-sheet and taking into account the pre-trial
detention of the appellants in custody and even if the
appellants stated to have been communicated the
grounds of arrest orally, but the affidavits of the SDPO
do not reveal any such thing, this Court without
expressing any view on merits of the case considers it
proper to admits each of the appellants to bail, but
subject to certain conditions.
8. Hence, the CRLAs stand allowed and the
impugned orders are hereby set aside. Consequently,
the appellants are directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 14 of 16
of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit
and proper by it with following conditions: –
(i) the appellants shall not contact the informant
and the injured persons and their family members;
(ii) the appellants shall not threaten/ influence/
induce/ terrorize/ coerce any of the witnesses
including the informant and her family members
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them disclosing such facts before the
Court.
(ii) the appellants shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the trial Court.
(iii) In case the appellants misuse the liberty of
bail and in order to secure their presence,
proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS is issued and the
appellants fail to appear before the Court on the
date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned
trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceeding
against them for offence U/S.209 of BNS in
accordance with law;
(iv) the appellants shall report attendance before
the jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight
preferably on a 2nd Sunday in each month in
between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six (06) months
from the actual date of release from the custody.
The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station
shall not detain the appellants unnecessarily after
recording their attendance beyond the time as
stipulated.
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 15 of 16
9. Accordingly, all these CRLAs stand disposed
of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated
to the concerned Court.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 06th day of July, 2026/Jayakrushna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Jul-2026 18:49:41
CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases
Page 16 of 16
