1. The court found a prima facie case of impersonation and fraud; noted the petitioner failed to disclose criminal antecedents in the bail application. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3164
ORISSA HIGH COURT
G. Satapathy, J
SUBASH MOHAPATRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
BLAPL 13706 / 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.K. Singh
For the Respondents: P.S. Nayak
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.K. Singh
For the Respondents: P.S. Nayak
Suppression of material facts, specifically criminal antecedents, in a bail application disentitles an applicant to discretionary relief. Additionally, impersonating a legal practitioner to defraud the court is a grave offense that warrants the denial of bail.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 and Section 35(3) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), and 340(2) - Advocates Act - Section 45 - Grant of bail - Impersonation as an advocate - Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents - Discretionary relief - Applicants seeking bail are under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete, and candid disclosure of all material facts, including criminal antecedents, which have a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion (Paras 6 and 7).
(B) Suppression of material facts, such as criminal history, in a bail application amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the root of the administration of criminal justice, thereby disentitling the applicant to the discretionary relief of bail (Paras 6 and 7).
(C) Impersonating a legal practitioner to conduct proceedings before a court is not only a criminal offense but also constitutes fraud upon the court and a crime against society (Para 5).
Facts of the case:
An individual without a valid license to practice law represented a party in an election petition before the court by using another person's enrolment number. Upon verification by the professional regulatory body, it was revealed that the enrolment number belonged to someone else. Consequently, the court directed the registration of an FIR. The applicant subsequently sought bail, arguing a lack of mandatory notice prior to arrest and that the offense was punishable by a short term of imprisonment. However, it was revealed during proceedings that the applicant had suppressed multiple criminal antecedents.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant had deliberately concealed significant criminal history in the bail application. It observed that the act of impersonating an advocate to mislead the court was a grave offense. Regarding the procedural requirement of notice for arrest, the court noted that the applicant had failed to produce requested documents during the investigation, justifying the necessity of the arrest.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to discretionary bail considering the grave nature of impersonating an officer of the court and the willful suppression of material criminal antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that transparency and integrity in bail adjudication are paramount; therefore, the suppression of material facts regarding criminal history disentitles an applicant to bail. Furthermore, the seriousness of practicing fraud upon the court through impersonation outweighs the grounds for granting bail.
Result: The bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
-
investigation
- police notice to produce documents (Para 8)
-
investigation
Table of Contents
2. Suppression of criminal antecedents in a bail application amounts to material suppression, disentitling the applicant to discretionary bail. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Bail application rejected due to prima facie case and material suppression of criminal antecedents. (Para 9 )
4. Is an applicant seeking bail under a duty to disclose all criminal antecedents?
Yes, an applicant for bail has a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete, and candid disclosure of all material facts, including criminal antecedents. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. What is the consequence of suppressing criminal antecedents in a bail application?
Suppression of material facts, including criminal antecedents, amounts to an abuse of process and disentitles the applicant to the discretionary relief of bail. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. Can the court consider the petitioner's non-cooperation with investigation when assessing the necessity of arrest?
Yes, when a petitioner does not cooperate with or join the investigation, the police have reason to arrest the accused despite the power-versus-necessity distinction. (Para 8 )
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
