The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.5761, 11344 & 12737 of 2024 (In the matter of applications under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). … Petitioners Mustaq Allam @ Mushtaque Alam (In BLAPL No.5761 of 2024) Aamir Khan (In BLAPL No.11344 of 2024) Arman Qureshi (In BLAPL No.12737 of 2024) Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate (in BLAPL No.5761 of 2024) Mr. D. Panda, Advocate (in BLAPL Nos.11344 & 12737 of 2024) State of Odisha … Opposite Party -versus- Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING &JUDGMENT:22.08.2025 G. Satapathy, J. 1. Since these three bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 1 of 13 2. These are applications U/S.483 BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Plantsite PS Case No.335 of 2021 arising out of ST No.64/16 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.147/ 148/ 307/ 341/ 323/ 326/ 506/ 302/ 120-B/ 149 of IPC r/w Sec.25/27 of
Legal Reasoning
Arms Act, on the allegation of firing at the informant and his brother and assaulting the brother of the informant by sharp cutting weapons along with co- accused persons causing death to the brother of the informant. 3.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.11344 & 12737 of 2024 submits that although the petitioners are identified in TI parade by PW16, but PW16 having admitted in cross-examination about seeing the photo of the petitioners prior to the TI parade, no sanctity can be attached to such TI parade report and eye witnesses like PWs.13 and 15 having not supported the prosecution case and the petitioner BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 2 of 13 Aamir Khan being the informant in the case of murder of his brother in which the deceased was an accused along with PW14, the evidence of PW14 cannot be believed to detain the petitioners further in custody in this case. It is also submitted by Mr.Panda that the petitioner Aamir Khan was released on interim bail for some period, but he has never misused the concession so granted to him and he being still continuing with the ailment may kindly be granted bail. It is also submitted by Mr. Panda that the petitioner Aamir Khan was in fact taken into hospital today for his ailment of varicose veins and there is no material or evidence against the petitioners, but they are in confinement and, therefore, the petitioners may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.5761 of 2024 in echoing the submission as advanced by Mr. Panda prays to grant bail to the petitioners. 3.2. In reply, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by producing relevant documents submits that the petitioner-Aamir Khan although claims BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 3 of 13 to have not misused the liberty so granted to him in the form of interim bail, but he had mislead the Court in obtaining extension of his interim bail. It is further submitted by Mr. Satpathy that appreciation of evidence at the stage of bail should be avoided, but it cannot be ruled out that the petitioners have been identified in TI parade, so also by the eye witnesses who have implicated them for the murder of the deceased. Mr. Satpathy further submits that the petitioners are having serious criminal antecedents and, therefore, release of the petitioners at this stage would facilitate them to influence the trial. Accordingly, Mr. Satpathy under the aforesaid submission prays to reject the bail applications of the petitioners. 4. A careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record, it is found that the petitioners are charged for murder of one Jitendra Kumar Saha, but the petitioners seek bail on the pleas that the evidence of the materials witnesses so far as examined who are PW.13 to 16 do not corroborate the prosecution allegation, but it is neither advisable nor acceptable to BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 4 of 13 appreciate the evidence at the stage of consideration of bail inasmuch as evidence of the witnesses has to be considered as a whole, but evidence should not be considered in isolation with the evidence of other witnesses who are yet to be examined and at this stage of consideration bail, appreciation of evidence should be avoided. Whether the identification of the petitioners by the witnesses as disputed by the counsel for the petitioners; or whether the evidence of PW.14 can be discarded on the ground that he being inimically disposed of with the petitioners have deposed against the petitioners; are subject of trial and it cannot be appreciated at this stage to grant bail to the petitioners. 5. Indisputably, the deceased Jitendra Kumar Saha had died of homicidal death and his post-mortem report reveals that the deceased had sustained four gunshot wounds and sixteen incised wounds on his body. Further, the petitioner Arman Qureshi is having fifteen criminal antecedents, but he has not disclosed a single criminal antecedent in his bail application. In a BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 5 of 13 very recent decision in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan; 2025 INSC 871, the Apex Court has been pleased to hold in paragraphs-22 and 23 as under:- “22. Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as below: “5. Bail applications. - In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.” 23. We feel that every High Court in the incorporating a country should consider similar provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other case(s) previously registered.” criminal BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 6 of 13 6. Besides, sixteen out of forty seven witnesses have already been examined till today and other witnesses are still to be examined. Much emphasize was given to the health condition of the petitioner Amir Khan to grant him bail, but it is not disputed that the said petitioner was admitted to interim bail for a period of four weeks by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an order passed on 22.11.2024 in IA No.1461 of 2024, but the petitioner-Amir Khan was again granted interim bail for a period of two weeks vide an order dated 03.01.2025 in IA No.1675 of 2024. Further, the interim bail of the petitioner-Amir Khan was again extended till 10.02.2025 and thereafter, the interim bail of the petitioner-Amir Khan was extended on 07.02.2025 till the next date which was again extended on 12.02.2025 in IA No.176 of 2025 till next date. However, when the petitioner-Aamir Khan again prayed for interim bail, this Court in order to know the health condition of the petitioner-Amir Khan with his further requirement has by way of an order dated 24.04.2025 requested the Superintendent BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 7 of 13 of SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack to form a medical board for examination of the health condition of the petitioner-Aamir Khan on a particular date as per their convenience by intimating the said date to this Court, but on 15.05.2025 learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that the petitioner-Amir Khan has already been admitted to SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack in the department of CTVS/ Ctv Unit 1 under Dr. Manoj Kumar Pattnaik and in such situation this Court by partial modification directed the petitioner-Amir Khan to produce all the relevant documents regarding his treatment as a indoor patient before this Court by the next date on 17.06.2025, on which date the learned counsel filed an affidavit stated to be sworn in by the petitioner-Amir Khan himself along with photocopy of certain documents, but it was submitted then that the Cardiology department SCB Medical College & Hospital returned the petitioner-Amir Khan by discharging him because he could not operated on account of higher heart rate and he thereby got himself admitted in a private hospital namely USTHI BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 8 of 13 Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where also the doctor refused to operate the petitioner-Aamir Khan on the ground that he is having higher heart rate. After this submission, this Court directed the learned state Counsel to obtain instruction from the concerned doctor who had attended the petitioner-Aamir Khan at SCB Medical College & Hospital at Cuttack and USTHI Hospital at Bhubaneswar and produce their reports with regard to refusing to operate the petitioner-Aamir Khan due to high heart rate. The state counsel accordingly, produced the written instruction received from IIC Plantsite PS Rourkela in which it was stated that on 15.05.2025 the petitioner-Aamir Khan took admission at SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for better treatment and on 17.05.2025, the petitioner-Aamir Khan submitted an undertaking before the hospital to the effect that he is then having no pain in his right leg, so he wants to take medicine and does not require any surgery in the leg and thereby, the petitioner himself has made contradictory statement; one before the hospital and another one in the Court that the BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 9 of 13 cardiology department of SCB Medical College & Hospital doctor has returned him (petitioner-Amir Khan) by discharging him because he could not be operated on account of higher heart rate. 7. True it is that the IO in his written instruction has stated to have discussed with the Dr. Srikant Debata, USTHI Hospital, Bhubaneswar who attended the petitioner on 16.06.2025 and stated that the petitioner-Aamir Khan was not clinically fit for operation due to his high blood pressure and high heart rate. In the circumstance, this Court did not extend the interim bail of the petitioner and directed him vide order dated 22.07.2025 to surrender to custody on or before 24.07.2025 and accordingly, the petitioner-Amir Khan is stated to have surrendered on 24.07.2025. Be that as it may, the petitioner was on interim bail w.e.f. 19.11.2024 till 24.07.2025 for around eight months, but neither he could complete his treatment nor was operated. 8. It is, however, found from the medical documents submitted by the Superintendent Special BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 10 of 13 Jail, Bonaigarh that the petitioner is suffering from varicose vein and he was provided with the treatment also. The USG Colour Doppler of Right Lower Limb Vessels of the petitioner as submitted by the Superintendent Special Jail, Bonaigarh in the medical documents discloses the following under the heading “impression”:- Post OP case of varicose vein GSV visualized upto 8 CM above knee joint and then not visualized. Multiple dilated superficial tributaries noted at right GSV and SSV territories. A dilated incompetent perforator noted at right GSV territory. 9. In the aforesaid situation and discussion made above, this Court does not consider it proper to again admit the petitioner-Amir Khan to interim bail for the purpose of treatment, however the jail authority are directed to provide proper treatment to the petitioner in case of necessity by following the relevant rules. 10. In the course of argument, it was submitted that the petitioner-Aamir Khan is the BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 11 of 13 informant in the case of the murder of his brother in which the deceased and PW.14 are the accused. In such scenario and after having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-(cid:224)-vis the allegations sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the role as alleged against the petitioners and taking into account the murder of the deceased Jitendra Kumar Saha by firing and assaulting with sharp cutting weapon and keeping in view the trial being going on and the law laid down by the Apex Court in X Vrs. State of Rajasthan and another [Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024] disposed of on 27.11.2024, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners. 11. Hence, these three bail applications of the petitioners namely Mustaq Allam @ Mushtaque Alam in BLAPL No.5761 of 2024, Aamir Khan in BLAPL No.11344 of 2024 and Arman Qureshi in BLAPL BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 12 of 13 No.12737 of 2024 stand rejected. Accordingly, the
Decision
BLAPLs stand disposed of. 12. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd day of August, 2025/Jayakrushna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Aug-2025 18:34:54 BLAPL Nos.5761 of 2024 & Other cases Page 13 of 13