IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.13706 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023).

Subash Mohapatra … Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. P.S. Nayak, Specially engaged counsel CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:12.05.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Lalbag PS Case No. 387 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.853 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned SDJM(S), Cuttack for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 319(2)/318(4)/336(2)/340(2) of BNS.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner having no license issued from any Bar Council to practice in any Court has posed himself as a lawyer and conducted an election petition before this Court by impersonating himself as an advocate, but later on the enrolment number as furnished by the petitioner in the Vakalatnama was found to be in the name of Gitanjali Sharma. This is the basis on which the FIR was lodged in this case.

3. In the course of hearing Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the offences alleged against the petitioner in the FIR appears to be punishable not beyond seven years, but he was not issued with any notice U/S. 35(3) of the BNSS and there was blatant violation of the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar and Another; (2014) 8 SCC 273. Mr. Singh further submits that even after registration of the case and taking the petitioner into custody for not having the enrolment number for practicing in the Court, the petitioner at best could have been implicated for offence U/S.45 of Advocates Act which is a special legislation and can prevail over the other legislation, but the said offence prescribes maximum punishment of imprisonment for six months, however, the petitioner was taken into custody in violation of statutory rules and law and petitioner having been kept in confinement since last five and half months and charge-sheet having already been submitted in the meantime, the petitioner’s custody should not be extended. Mr. Singh further submits that the power to arrest is one thing, but the necessity to arrest is a separate thing and in all the cases, there need not to be any arrest of the accused, more particularly when the petitioner like in this case is not a flight risk and he has deep roots in the society and there is hardly any chance of his absconding, which is evident from the petitioner’s arrest from his own house, even after registration of the FIR and thereby, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on that score. Further, Mr. Singh by highlighting the bottom part of the check list as annexed in the charge sheet submits that the police has not issued any notice as contemplated U/S.35(3) of BNSS against the petitioner by showing the offences alleged against the petitioner to be for offences U/S.338 of BNS & other offences which are not punishable beyond seven years and therefore, the petitioner in all fairness is entitled to bail. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Singh prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned specially engaged counsel for this case submits that this Court has to consider the circumstances under which the FIR in this case has been registered against the petitioner because the petitioner despite being provided with opportunities to produce his enrolment number and license, failed to do so and later on he was found to be not an advocate, but he was conducting the election case before this Court by impersonating himself as an advocate by showing the enrolment number of another person in the Vakalatnama, but when the petitioner after being provided with opportunities could not produce any valid license to practice in a Court, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed f