The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.1021 of 2025 Babana Charan Pradhan & Others …. Petitioners Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Ms. B. Dash, ASC CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 11.12.2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order as at Annexure-3 dated 15th October, 2025 passed in connection with C.T. Case No. 1629 of 2024 by the learned JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, Khurda on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were granted bail by the learned Sessions Court, however, it has been cancelled vide Annexure-3 by the learned JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar which is impermissible in view of Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. The further submission is that the learned court below without any notice to the petitioners proceeded to cancel the bail and issued NBWA against them. The contention is that the learned court below did not have the Page 1 of 5 jurisdiction to cancel the bail in view of the orders in B.A. No. 1919, 2209, 2402 & 2553 of 2024 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. The further contention is that at the worst case, the learned court below should have issued a bailable warrant and therefore, the impugned order dated 15th October, 2025 is legally not tenable, hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside. 4. From the order sheets at Annexure-3 of the learned court below, the Court finds that the petitioners were released on bail by the orders of the learned Sessions Court, however, the same was cancelled on the premise that F.I.R.s were lodged against them. It is made to reveal from the impugned order dated 15th October, 2025 that the learned court below in view of the F.I.Rs. being lodged proceeded to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners exercising power under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. and the same has been at the behest of the informant. 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that FRT is filed in Mancheswar P.S. Case No.0196 of 2025 whereas in the other case i.e. Mancheswar P.S. Case No.0372 of 2025, investigation is pending. A certified copy of the F.I.R. lodged in connection with Mancheswar P.S. Case No. 0196 of 2025 dated 13th April, 2025 is produced by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners for the Court’s perusal. 6. In fact, the informant approached the learned court below alleging that the two F.I.Rs. have been lodged against Page 2 of 5 the petitioners, hence, they have committed the offences after release, hence, having violated the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions court, their bail should be cancelled and considering the same, cancellation was directed therein by order dated 15th October, 2025 at Annexure-3. 7. According to Section 437(5) Cr.P.C., the Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section(s) (1) or (2) thereof shall record in writing the reasons or special reasons and direct that such person be arrested and recommitted the custody. 8. The submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the bail having been granted to the petitioners by the learned Sessions Court, it could not have been cancelled by the learned JMFC. The Court is inclined to accept the above contention for the reason that the bail of the petitioners could have been cancelled only by the court of Sessions in view of Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the order sheets at Annexure-3 reveal that the application received from the informant was attached and could not be served on the defence counsel as made to reveal from the order dated 9th September, 2025. In fact, from the said order, the Court finds that a copy of the application was attached to the record and the case was fixed to 12th September, 2025 for hearing on bail cancellation and on the subsequent dates, the accused persons were found absent without any steps being taken and hence, the learned court below proceeded to pass the order on 15th October, 2025 cancelling the bail for the petitioners. According Page 3 of 5 to the Court, the learned court below could have considered cancellation of bail in the immediate presence of the petitioners. As it appears, no effort was made by the learned court below to ensure that a copy of the application seeking cancellation of bail was served on the learned defence counsel appearing for the petitioners. The Court also finds that a plea for cancellation of bail moved by the informant could not have been entertained and allowed in view of Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, if the learned court below was really inclined to ensure the presence of the petitioners, it could have issued notices/bailable warrants before dealing with the plea of the informant for bail cancellation. Without exhausting any such procedure, the learned court below directed cancellation of bail of the petitioners, which in the considered view of the Court cannot be sustained in law. It is well settled that grant of bail and cancellation of the same are quite separate and distinct and therefore, a Court is to exercise jurisdiction accordingly. The criteria for cancellation of bail is different than while considering grant of the same. The said aspect could not have been lost sight of by the learned court below while passing the impugned order dated 15th October, 2025 and therefore, the Court being in agreement with the contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is inclined to set aside the order followed by the direction herein below. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 15th October, Page 4 of 5 2025 passed in connection with C.T. Case No. 1629 of 2024 by learned JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar is hereby set aside leaving it open for the prosecution to move such an application seeking cancellation of bail availing appropriate remedy under law. As a consequence, it is further directed that the NBWAs issued by the learned court below after cancellation of bail pending execution against the petitioners shall be recalled forthwith. 11. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 13-Dec-2025 12:26:59 Page 5 of 5