The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.12858 & 12867 of 2024 & 118 & 120 of 2025 (In the matter of applications U/S.483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023). Purna Chandra Nag and another (In BLAPL No.12858 of 2024) Biren @ Birendra Bag and another (In BLAPL No.12867 of 2024) Mahatab Kharsel (In BLAPL No.118 of 2025) Madan Jal (In BLAPL No.120 of 2025) … Petitioners Mr. B.K. Das, Advocate (for all the petitioners) State of Odisha … Opposite Party -versus- Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:28.10.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. Since these four bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with
Legal Reasoning
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases Page 1 of 9 2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with ST Case No.64 of 2023,ST Case No.122 of 2023, ST Case No.122 of 2023 & ST Case No.181 of 2023 corresponding to GR Case No.103-F of 2011, GR Case No.103-H of 2011, GR Case No.103-H of 2011 & GR Case No.103-I of 2011 respectively which arise out of Titilagarh PS Case No.37 of 2011 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.147/ 148/ 341/ 325/ 302/ 436/ 114/ 120-B/ 149 of IPC r/w Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, on the main allegation of rioting, along with co-accused persons being armed with deadly weapons by forming an unlawful assembly and attacking the deceased and setting fire to the Bolero vehicle in which the deceased was sitting by pouring petrol and thereby, causing death of the deceased Radhe Shyam Rai, the then DGM of Powmex Steel Plant, Titilagarh. 3.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Basanta Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for all the BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases Page 2 of 9 petitioners submits that out of 52 accused persons, 35 co-accused have faced the trial, but only one was found convicted and that too, the said convict was admitted to bail by this Court, which was confirmed in Apex Court. It is further submitted that another co-accused Basanta Kumar Sahoo, who has been granted bail by this Court, but the order granting bail of such co- accused has been unsuccessfully challenged by the informant before the Apex Court. It is further submitted by Mr. Das that the accused persons have faced the trial and remained in custody for more than two years and in the meantime, the vital witness namely Alok Kumar Nayak having already been examined in the trial has not substantially supported the prosecution allegation against the petitioners and he was accordingly found to have not been able to identify any of the accused persons including co-accused Madan Jal and Mahatab Kharsel, who are stated to be prime accused in this case and, therefore, the petitioners being the innocent persons and having detained in BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases Page 3 of 9 custody for a substantial period, may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. In opposing such prayer for bail, Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Graphite India Limited for whose behalf FIR was lodged in this case, submits that not only the present accused persons have been apprehended after substantial lapse of time of more than 10 years, but also their implication is on the basis of admissible evidence, which is palpable from the evidence of eye witness Alok Kumar Nayak, who in the course of his examination before the trial Court has uttered the name of the accused Mahatab Kharsel to have set fire to the Bolero vehicle resulting in death of the deceased and the role played by the accused Madan Jal in pelting stone to the face of the deceased and, thereby, all the accused persons-cum-petitioners having participated in the unlawful assembly to commit murder of the deceased, they are squarely liable and therefore, they should not be granted bail. Mr. Patnaik further highlighting the issue and taking this Court through the evidence of informant submits that the BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases Page 4 of 9 informant has uttered the name of all the accused persons who are present at the spot and the bail granted to co-accused Basanta Kumar Sahoo having no precedency value as held by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.55714 of 2024. Mr. Patnaik further, submits that the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.810-811 of 2021 having taken into account the long abscondance of the petitioners against their grant of bail and in the present case, the petitioners having absconded for more than 10 years, should not be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, Mr. Patnaik prays to reject the bail application of the petitioners. 3.2. In supplementing the submission of Mr. Patnaik, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, by relying upon the evidence of the eye witness and informant submits that not only the present petitioners have the crucial role in the attack on the deceased, but also they were being found by the eye witness to have set fire to the vehicle of the deceased in which the deceased lost his life and the petitioners having taken into custody after long years, BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases Page 5 of 9 they should not be granted bail. Mr. Mishra accordingly prays to reject the bail application of the petitioners. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about the petitioners being in custody for more than two years and the examination of material witness like the eye witness Alok Kumar Nayak. It is no doubt true that abscondance of accused persons is certainly a ground to refuse bail, but the same may not be a ground when there is no substantive evidence against any such persons and, even on such event, the absconding accused can also be admitted to bail by looking at the nature of allegation and the supporting materials collected by the investigating agency. In this case, there is absolutely no dispute about acquittal of some of the co-accused persons with solitary conviction of one accused namely Kumara Bag, who was subsequently admitted to bail, but as per the submission of the learned counsel for the informant that he was admitted to bail after 14 years of incarceration. It cannot be denied that an accused BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases Page 6 of 9 person in law is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty at the trial, but grant or refusal of bail is to be regulated by the materials placed on record and the alleged act of the accused persons and the severity of the punishment as well as the nature and gravity of the offences. In this case, the incident occurred in the year 2011, but the present accused persons are facing trial since 2022, but trial is yet to be concluded. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-(cid:224)-vis the accusation sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the materials collected in support of the allegation together with the evidence of material witnesses and there being solitary conviction of one accused and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety including the detention period of the individual petitioners and the role as alleged against them and the vital witness like eye witness having already been examined and, thereby, there being little apprehension BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases Page 7 of 9 of tampering of evidence of material witnesses and on going through the entire materials placed on record including the evidence of eye witness, this Court while not being inclined to grant bail to the petitioner Mahatab Kharsel in BLAPL No.118 of 2025, however, considers it proper to admit the petitioners-Purna Chandra Nag and Antaram Bishi in BLAPL No.12858 of 2024; Biren @ Birendra Bag and Garuda @ Garudadhwaja Sahu in BLAPL No.12867 of 2024 and Madan Jal in BLAPL No.120 of 2025 to bail, but subject to certain terms and conditions. 6. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Mahatab Kharsel in BLAPL No.118 of 2025 stands rejected, whereas the prayer for bail of petitioners- Purna Chandra Nag and Antaram Bishi in BLAPL No.12858 of 2024; Biren @ Birendra Bag and Garuda @ Garudadhwaja Sahu in BLAPL No.12867 of 2024 and Madan Jal in BLAPL No.120 of 2025 stands allowed. Accordingly, the petitioners Purna Chandra Nag, Antaram Bishi, Biren @ Birendra Bag, Garuda @ Garudadhwaja Sahu and Madan Jal are allowed to go BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases Page 8 of 9 on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each 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, fail unless their attendance (ii) the petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without is dispensed with. In case the Petitioners fail without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may for proceed against the Petitioners offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the BLAPL Nos.12858 & 12867 of 2024 & BLAPL Nos.118 & 120 of 2025 stands
Decision
disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 28th day of October, 2025/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Oct-2025 18:16:39 BLAPL Nos.12858 of 2024 & other cases Page 9 of 9