Bail applications must consider the seriousness of charges and the criminal history of applicants, with prior convictions impacting the court's decision.

Judgment :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. These are applications U/S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(in short, “CrPC”) by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.27 of 2016 corresponding to S.T. Case No.35 of 2018/ S.T. Case No.100 of 2023 (G.R. Case No. 222 of 2016) pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.387/120-B/34 of IPC r/w. Sec.25(1-B)(a)/25(1- AA)/27 of Arms Act, 1959 (in short “the Act”), on the main allegation of demanding extortion money and possessing prohibited firearms and live ammunitions.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Chandan Samanataray, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these three bail applications submits that although the petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar Dhalasamanta in BLAPL No. 9082 of 2025 have been made as accused persons in this case, but the seizure was made in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016, and therefore, the present case registered against the aforesaid petitioners is not maintainable and thereby, the offence U/S.25(1-AA) of the Act is not attracted against the petitioners, but the petitioners having already been detained in custody for a substantial period, may kindly be granted bail. Further, Mr. Samantaray submits that the petitioners Debasish Kar (BLAPL No.9084 of 2025) and Lipuna @ Debadutta Das (BLAPL No. 12246 of 2025) have no substantial criminal antecedents, but they having been detained in custody for a substantial period without any material, their bail application may kindly be considered favourably by extending the principle of parity in view of grant of bail to co-accused Arif Khan and Dilu @ Pradeep Sahu in BLAPL Nos. 7411 of 2025 & 8201 of 2025.

2.1. On the other hand, Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Special engaged Counsel in these cases opposes the bail applications of the petitioners by contending, inter alia that the petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar Dhalasamanta are not only history-sheeters, but also they have got past conviction under the Act, but the punishment prescribed for the offence U/S.25(1-AA) of the Act is not less than 10 years, however, the same may extend up to imprisonment for life, but the penalty as provided therein would be doubled in case of previous conviction for offence under the Act in view of the provision of Section 31 of the Act, and therefore, the petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar Dhalasamanta having been previously convicted for the offence under the Act, there is every likelihood of imposition of twice the penalty as prescribed for the offence on the Dhala Samanta brothers in case of their conviction for the said offence. Accordingly, Mr. Nayak, prays not only to reject the bail application of the petitioners Suhanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar Dhalasamanta, but also that of the petitioners Debasish Kar and Lipuna @ Debadutta Das, however, Mr. Nayak does not dispute about grant of bail to co-accused Arif Khan and Dilu @ Pradeep Sahu.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of the record, there appears allegation against the petitioners Sushanta Dhalasamanta and Sushil Kumar Dhalasamanta for possessing prohibited firearms and live ammunitions, but some of the witnesses so far examined have deposed against the aforesaid two petitioners by supporting the prosecution allegation. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner Sushanta Dhalasamanta has been convicted in two criminal cases and is accordingly, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 07 years in one criminal case and imprisonment for 05 years in anoth