Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2981
ORISSA HIGH COURT
G. Satapathy, J
Dibakar Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
BLAPL No. 11377 of 2025|BLAPL No. 11998 of 2025|BLAPL No. 12000 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: S.103(1), S.189(2), S.191(2), S.61(2), S.190, S.3(5), S.126(2), S.76, S.115(2), S.351(3), S.296, S.109
Arms Act: S.25, S.27
Constitution of India: Art.22(1)
Indian Penal Code: S.147, S.148, S.302, S.326, S.307, S.149
Headnote
(B) Bail - Consideration - Criminal antecedents - In adjudicating bail, criminal history of the accused cannot be overlooked as it is a vital factor - The duration of custody is relevant but must be weighed against the totality of circumstances, societal concerns, and the gravity of the alleged crime. (Paras 4 and 8)
(C) Arrest - Grounds of arrest - Procedural compliance - Requirement for formal written communication - The interpretation of statutory provisions regarding communication of arrest grounds must align with established judicial precedents to ensure both constitutional rights and effective justice administration. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought bail for their alleged involvement in a murder case, involving charges of common object and forming an unlawful assembly. Challenges were raised regarding the procedural compliance of arrest notification and the reliability of witness statements. The prosecution opposed the applications, emphasizing the serious criminal history of the primary accused and reports of eyewitness accounts linking the petitioners to the offence.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the primary accused had a long record of criminal antecedents and evidence supported the prosecution's allegations. The court held that the procedural requirement for communicating the grounds of arrest had been satisfied, and the serious nature of the offences against the petitioners weighed against granting bail at the current stage of investigation.
Issues: The central issues were the impact of criminal antecedents on the adjudication of bail and whether the procedural requirements for notification of arrest grounds were satisfied to warrant the release of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal antecedents, combined with the gravity of the offence and the societal impact, are primary considerations in bail adjudication. Personal liberty must be balanced against public safety, and procedural compliance is to be assessed within the framework of current judicial interpretations of criminal laws.
Result: Bail applications rejected. The petitions are disposed of.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. Katikia, J. Sahoo
For the Respondents: P. Satpathy
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of case and allegations (Para 1) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding evidence and procedural rights (Para 2) |
| 3. role of criminal antecedents in bail adjudication (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. retrospective application and compliance with section 47 bnss/article 22 (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. evaluation of gravity of offense and final order for bail rejection (Para 8 , 9) |
G. Satapathy, J.
1. These are applications U/S.483 of the BNSS, 2023 by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Purushottampur P.S. Case No.240 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 216 of 2025 (G.R. Case No. 238 of 2025) pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatrapur/ JMFC, Purusottampur, being charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.103(1)/189(2)/191(2)/ 61(2)/191(3)/190 of BNS r/w. Sec.25/27 of Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Sumanta Mahapatra, along with co-accused persons by conjointly assaulting him with deadly weapons in prosecution of their common object by forming an unlawful assembly.
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner-Dibakar Behera in BLAPL No. 11377 of 2025 prays to grant bail to the petitioner not only for non-compliance of the provisions of Sec. 47 of BNSS/ Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India for non-furnishing grounds of arrest to the petitioner-Dibakar Behera, but also submits on merit to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that the deceased had not whispered the name of the assailant, however, the complainant/informant named the petitioner in the FIR, although the same appears to be improbable because the alleged occurrence took place in the night and there must be darkness at the so called place of occurrence. Mr. Katikia further submits that the FIR averments do not disclose the time of the occurrence, but the petitioner and others have been stated to have allegedly committed the crime which is unbelievable, since the mode and manner of implication of the petitioner is highly questionable. He further submits that it was uncertain for seeing the occurrence by the informant, who was present at a distance from the alleged scene of occurrence, but the informant has said to have seen the occurrence, which in the circumstance is highly improbable and the police being pressurized by the local political party has falsely indicted the petitioner in this case and thereby, in such scenario, keeping the petitioner in confinement would curtail his personal liberty without any reasonable ground. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Katkia prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
2.1. On the other hand, Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Sanjaya Behera and Manoj Behera in BLAPL Nos. 11998 & 12000 of 2025 submits that the name of these two petitioners do not figure out in the FIR and they have been implicated in this case subsequently by manufacturing the statement of witnesses Balaram Behera, Rama Chandra Lenka and Kumar Swain, which is highly unbelievable because although the complainant knows the petitioners, he has not named them in the FIR. Mr. Sahoo further submits that the petitioners are in confinement since long, but charge sheet has already been submitted in the meantime and no adverse report is forthcoming against the petitioners about pendency of any criminal case against them and, therefore, in the circumstance, the petitioners may kindly be granted bail.
2.2. In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP by taking this Court through the materials placed on record, submits that the petitioner-Dibakar Behera has not only been named in the FIR, but also he is the main author of the crime and he has got seven criminal antecedent to his credit and he having been seen by the informant in killing the deceased, his name has been clearly figured out in the FIR and the other petitioners having been seen by the eye witnesses for committing the
