Bail applications for serious offences require careful scrutiny of criminal antecedents, prioritizing societal safety and the necessity for full disclosure by the accused.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with ST Case No. 24 of 2024 arising out of Khurda Model PS Case No. 351 of 2023 pending in the file of learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 294/302/307/506/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Somanath Bhujabala @ Paku by firing at him from pistols, along with co-accused persons after hatching a criminal conspiracy.

3. Heard Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.733 of 2026; Mr. Kedar Chandra Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.2704 of 2026 and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP in these two matters and perused the record together with copy of depositions of PWs.1-21 as supplied.

4. After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for committing murder of the deceased by firing at him, along with co-accused persons after hatching a criminal conspiracy, but bail is mainly sought for to the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera for witnesses so far examined not taking his name in their evidence, however, the bail application of the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera was earlier rejected by this Court in BLAPL No.2937 of 2024 for having serious criminal antecedents which was never denied by the petitioner as stated by him in paragraph no.5 of his bail application. It is, however, not in dispute that the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera is allegedly having 18 criminal antecedents, but he has not disclosed the details of his criminal antecedents in his bail application, which is a material suppression. In this regard this Court is fortified with the decision in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan; 2025 INSC 871, wherein the Apex Court has held the following in paragraphs-22 and 23: -

“22. Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as below:

“5. Bail applications. - In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.”

23. We feel that every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a similar provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered.”

5. Further, the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera is implicated in this case with the aid of Sec.120(B) of IPC, but such allegation can be appreciated after examination of all the material witnesses, however, only 21 charge- sheeted witnesses have been examined till today and there are other material witnesses yet to be examined. The criminal antecedents as shown against the petitioner for 18 criminal cases is not a