The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.10922 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). Biswanath Patro @ Patra … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:22.12.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Baliguda PS Case No.188 of 2019 corresponding to ST Case No.57(A) of 2023 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.302/120-B/109/34 of IPC r/w Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, on the main allegation of entering into BLAPL No.10922 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 conspiracy with co-accused persons to commit murder
Legal Reasoning
bail by this Court in BLAPL Nos.8204 of 2024, 11818 of 2024 and 8544 of 2025. Further, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner for committing murder of the deceased, rather the allegation of committing murder of the deceased is directed against the co- accused Ram Narayan Nahak. The Apex Court while allowing the SLP preferred by the wife of the deceased against the order granting bail to the petitioner, has inter-alia observed the following:- “The appellant, Chhabirani Panda, the complainant, whose husband was killed on 10.12.2019. By the impugned order/judgment dated 30.08.2024, the High Court granted bail to the one of accused, Biswanath Patra, respondent No.2 herein. is The operative portion of the impugned order/judgment reads as under:- “Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced so far by the witnesses in the trial of the co-accused persons and since there is no BLAPL No.10922 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 direct evidence of assault against the petitioner, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.” The order is, therefore, bereft of any valid and cogent reasoning as to what weighed with the Court to grant such relief.” 4. The aforesaid observation of the Apex Court makes it very clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail has assigned such reason which was considered by Apex Court to be bereft of any valid and cogent reasoning as to what weighed to grant such relief to the petitioner, but this Court has already given reasoning that the present petitioner was not present at the scene of crime nor was stated to be participated directly in commission of the crime, rather the allegation against him for entering into conspiracy with co-accused persons and similarly situated co- accused namely Shyama @ Shyam Sundar Patra, Gopal Chandra Patra @ Gopal Krishna Patra, Ram Chandra Patra and Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya have already been granted bail by this Court and the same have not been challenged by the wife of the deceased or the State before higher forum. Additionally, it is BLAPL No.10922 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 informed by the learned counsel for the wife of the deceased that the wife of the deceased had in fact approached this Court for cancellation of bail of accused Shyama @ Shyam Sundar Patra, but the same was rejected by this Court and, thereafter, the wife of the deceased has not carried any SLP against such order passed by this Court. 5.
Arguments
In the course of hearing, Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the name of the present petitioner did figure out in the FIR, but he was not charge-sheeted, however, on the petition of the prosecution U/S.319 of CrPC, the petitioner was subsequently arraigned as an accused, but when he got bail from this Court, the wife of the deceased challenged the same before the Apex Court, which allowed the SLP by directing the petitioner to surrender before the learned Court and, accordingly, the petitioner in obedience to the order of the Apex Court, voluntarily surrendered before the learned trial Court and unsuccessfully moved his bail application before the learned trial Court. Mr. Mishra further submits that the main allegation of murdering the deceased is directed against co-accused Ram Narayan Nahak, but neither the petitioner was present at the spot nor was having any role in the commission of crime and, therefore, the petitioner having been BLAPL No.10922 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly be granted bail. 2.1. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, by placing reliance to the paragraph-8 of PW- 7 submits that the petitioner had strong enmity with the deceased and, thereby, he has conspired to kill the deceased and, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 2.2. On the other hand, Mr. Rabi Narayan Rout, learned counsel for the wife of the deceased (victim) submits that not only the petitioner was named in the FIR, but also he had a definite role in committing the crime, however, the police facilitated the accused- petitioner to conceal his mobile phone by which the conspiracy was initiated and the petitioner having prima facie role in conspiring with the co-accused to eliminate the deceased, his bail application may kindly be rejected. Mr. Rout, however, by taking this Court through the observation of the Apex Court further submits that the investigating officer did not deem it BLAPL No.10922 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 appropriate to include the name of the petitioner in the charge-sheet, but he was subsequently arraigned as an accused by virtue of an order passed U/S.319 of CrPC and the learned trial Court while refusing bail to the petitioner has in fact discussed about the role played by the present petitioner and since trial having just commenced without examination of any material witness, the learned trial Court refused bail to the petitioner and, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for entering into conspiracy with co-accused persons to eliminate the deceased, but fact remains that the petitioner was admittedly not charge-sheeted in this case, however, the petitioner and four others were subsequently arraigned as accused persons by virtue of an order passed on the application U/S.319 of CrPC moved by the prosecution, however, co-accused Shyama @ Shyam Sundar Patra, Gopal Chandra Patra @ Gopal BLAPL No.10922 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 Krishna Patra, Ram Chandra Patra and Chintu @ Ananda Prasad Acharya, who have been arraigned as accused persons in such application U/S.319 of CrPC moved by the prosecution for entering into conspiracy with co-accused persons, have already been granted
Decision
In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials placed on record, since there appears no direct material against the petitioner for firing at the deceased and there being only allegation against the petitioner for entering into conspiracy with co-accused, but co-accused standing on similar footing having already been granted bail by this Court in different bail applications and the same having not been challenged before higher forum till today and taking into account the surrender of the petitioner to custody within the time fixed by the Apex Court in the SLP and taking into account the principle that “bail is the rule, but jail is the exception” and there being no material to indicate that BLAPL No.10922 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 the petitioner would abscond in the event of his grant of bail and keeping in view that bail should not be confused with letting the accused acquitted, rather bail being a temporary release from the custody and that too, transfer of custody from law to a private individual, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits, considers it proper to admit the petitioner to bail. 6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two solvent sureties each 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. 7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Dec-2025 19:34:58 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd day of December, 2025/Subhasmita BLAPL No.10922 of 2025 Page 8 of 8