Sharat Kumar Sahu @ v. State of Odisha

Mr. S.K. Lenka, ASC Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate (Informant) ABLAPL No.10101 of 2025 Soumya Ranjan Jena @ Raka Jena …. Petitioner Mr. B. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S.K. Lenka, ASC Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER 08.09.2025 Order No.

Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the Informant by filing vakalantama in Court in ABLAPL Nos.10097 and 10101 of 2025. The same are taken on record. The name of Mr. Bhokta be reflected in the file, cause list and the web portal of this Court.

Since both the matters arise out of Chandrasekhar P.S. Case No.487 of 2025, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order on the consent of the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.338 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, arising out of Chandrasekhar P.S. Case No.487 of 2025 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 351(2), 324(4), 118(1), 115(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that exaggerated allegations have been made. Hence, they may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Das, that in the meanwhile the co-accused have been released on bail by the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda in BLAPL Nos.1719,1743 & 1756 of 2025 and while dealing with that application, it has been mentioned that injury suffered by the injured is simple. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not warranted since the Petitioners do not have any criminal proclivity.

Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer and submits that considering the manner in which the incident has happened and there are number of injured persons, the Petitioners ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail notwithstanding that the injuries suffered are simple in nature.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Informant that one of the injured Sudarshan Sahu was referred to a higher Center. Hence, the Petitioners ought not to be protected.

Considering the nature of allegations and the injury report, it is directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioners shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper subject to verification of criminal antecedent and nature of injury.

If it comes to fore that the Petitioners have any criminal antecedent and injury suffered by the injured is grievous, this order shall not be given effect to.

Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once every month till the submission of final form on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.

It is further directed that Petitioners shall not in any way try to intimidate the victim/ Informant and her family.

It Informant/prosecution to seek variance of this order in the event there is any threat perception.

It is needless to state that the Petitioners shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Soumya Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Sep-2025 20:29:16