The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.6776 & 6798 of 2025 (In the matter of applications U/S.483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023). Venkat Balaji Patra (In BLAPL No.6776 of 2025) Sujit Kumar Patra (In BLAPL No.6798 of 2025) … Petitioners Mr. B.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. R. Sahoo, Advocate (in BLAPL No.6776 of 2025) Mr. H.P. Panda, proxy counsel on behalf of Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, Advocate (in BLAPL No.6798 of 2025) State of Odisha -versus- … Opposite Party Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:24.09.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Sambalpur Town PS Case No.85 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.623 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Sambalpur, for commission of BLAPL Nos.6776 & 6798 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/ 336(2)/ 336(3)/ 340(2)/ 61(2)/ 351(3)/ 3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of forcing the Sub-registrar to register a sale deed in favour of some persons without having title over the land. 2.
Legal Reasoning
similar/grave offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. BLAPL Nos.6776 & 6798 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 6. Accordingly, these BLAPL Nos.6776 and
Arguments
In the course of hearing, Mr. Bigyana Kumar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Rudrabhisek Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 6776 of 2025 by producing a copy of the registered sale deed, submits that initially the petitioners had purchased the land from one Govinda Meher, who by impersonating himself as Binod Kumar Gupta had registered the sale deed in the favour of the petitioners, but when the defect came to the knowledge of the petitioners, they entered into a compromise with the true owners of the land and, accordingly, they executed another sale deed which has been produced today, along with the true owners of the land by way of a registered sale deed, but the Sub- registrar who registered the earlier sale deed was also BLAPL Nos.6776 & 6798 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 made an accused in the first sale deed executed by Govinda Meher impersonating himself as Binod Kumar Gupta and since the dispute appears to be civil in nature, no criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioners, but the petitioners having detained in custody since 26.03.2025 has suffered a lot without any fault and, therefore, charge-sheet having already been submitted in this case, there would not be any impediment to grant bail to the petitioners, more particularly when the subject matter of dispute can be adjudicated in the Court in a trial and the petitioners are desirous to face the trial. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Sharma prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 2.1. On the other hand, Mr. Hara Prasad Panda, learned counsel appearing virtually on behalf of Mr. Alok Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 6798 of 2025 submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the land for value, but subsequently, he along with the petitioner had sold BLAPL Nos.6776 & 6798 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 away the land by entering into a compromise with the legal heirs of the real title holder of the land and, therefore, the petitioner having not committed any criminal offence, but remained in custody for around five months may kindly be granted bail. 2.2. Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, however, submits that unless the vendors are having clear title over the land, they could not have executed a sale deed, but that has not been verified, however, they have pressurized the Sub-registrar to execute the sale deed and, therefore, the petitioners being involved in other similar cases, their prayer for bail may kindly be rejected. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for selling away a piece of land to cheat the real owner, but the genesis of the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners itself discloses it to be on account of some BLAPL Nos.6776 & 6798 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 dispute which arises out of a sale deed which was executed in their favour by a person impersonating himself as Binod Kumar Gupta. Be that as it may, there appears no material to have been collected by the investigating agency to suggest that the petitioner would abscond from the process of law, if they are released on bail. Besides, the primary rule in bail is that it should not be withheld as a pre-trial punishment, since a person accused of offence is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty at the trial. No doubt, some criminal cases have been registered against the petitioners, but it appears that out of such cases, three cases are offshoot of the present land dispute between the parties. Whether the petitioners have committed offences or not is the subject matter of the trial, but allegation is always allegation, which can be examined at the trial. 4. In view of the above discussions and after having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials placed on record together with BLAPL Nos.6776 & 6798 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 submission of charge-sheet in the meantime and regard being had to the pre-trial detention of the petitioners in custody and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits each of the petitioners to bail. 5. Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Venkat Balaji Patra in BLAPL No.6776 of 2025 and Sujit Kumar Patra in BLAPL No.6798 of 2025 are allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail, (ii) the petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting fail unless their attendance are without dispensed with. In case the Petitioners fail without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of BLAPL Nos.6776 & 6798 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 the bail, the learned trial Court may for proceed against the Petitioners offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law, jurisdiction of leave the (iii) the petitioners shall not territorial trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by intimating their present address of stay to the concerned Court and the (iv) the petitioners shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on a 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 petitioners unnecessarily after recording their attendance beyond the time as stipulated. It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioners in future for
Decision
6798 of 2025 stand disposed of. 7. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th day of September, 2025/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Sep-2025 18:08:03 BLAPL Nos.6776 & 6798 of 2025 Page 8 of 8