CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 1 of 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLA Nos.517, 584, 596, 597, 801, 1075 of 2025

(An appeal U/S.14(A) of the SC & ST (POA) Act r/w

Sec.483 of BNSS).

Abhimanyu Mishra

(In CRLA No.517 of 2025)

Aniket Mishra

(In CRLA No.584 of 2025)

Subham Sharma

(In CRLA No.596 of 2025)

Varun Bhati @ Barun Bhati

(In CRLA No.597 of 2025)

Siddhant Sharma

(In CRLA No.801 of 2025)

Akash Poddar and another

(In CRLA No.1075 of 2025) … Appellants

Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. A. Pradhan, Advocate

(in CRLA Nos.517, 584, 596, 597 & 801 of 2025)

Mr. D. Nayak, Sr. Advocate

along with Ms. A. Mishra, Advocate

(in CRLA No.1075 of 2025)

-versus-

State of Orissa and another … Respondents

Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP

Mr. S.K. Jena, Advocate along with

Mr. D.R. Parida, Advocate for the informant

(in all these CRLAs)

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:06.07.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. These criminal appeals U/S.14(A) of the SC

& ST (POA) Act r/w Sec.483 of 14-A(2) of the

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 2 of 16

Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act,

2016 (in short, “the Act”) in nature of bail are directed

against the impugned order dated

11.04.2025/10.07.2025 passed in Spl. GR Case No.40

of 2024 & 40/2 of 2024-2025 by which the learned 2

nd

Addl. Sessions Judge, Samalpur has refused to grant

bail to the appellants in connection with Khetrarajpur

PS Case No.247 of 2024 for commission of offences

punishable under Sections 115(2)/ 126(2)/ 296/

109(1)/ 191(2)(3)/ 103(1)/ 190 of BNS r/w

Sec.3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Act, on the main

allegation of rioting being armed with lethal weapons,

such as stump, brick bat & wooden batten and

indiscriminately assaulting the deceased Badal Tandi

and other five injured persons namely Pramod

Mahananda, Rahul Mahananda, Pintu Singh, Niranjan

Deep and Rahul Mugri in prosecution of their common

object by taking advantage of their caste owing to a

dispute of throwing of fire-crackers towards the mother

of the appellant Subham Sharma.

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 3 of 16

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Debi Prasad

Dhal, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Mr.

Abhishek Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants

submits that the transaction depicts a case of assault

and counter assault relating to throwing of fire-

crackers, but the deceased and injured persons were

the aggressors, which is evident from the appellants

suffering injuries on their persons in the transaction. It

is further submitted by Mr. Dhal that the arresting

officer while affecting arrest has failed to comply the

provision of Sec.47 of BNSS r/w Art.22(1) of the

Constitution of India which is evident from the arrest

memos of the appellants as the same do not contain a

single word with regard to furnishing of grounds of

arrest to the appellants. Mr. Dhal, further submits that

the name of the appellants does not figure out in the

FIR which contains only the name of the priest of

Vaishno Devi temple and some others, but the

appellants have been subsequently implicated in this

case and the deceased had suffered death subsequently

while undergoing treatment and thereby, no case U/S.

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 4 of 16

103 of BNS is attracted in this case. It is further

submitted that the appellants are in custody since

03.11.2024 and although the charge-sheet has been

submitted, but trial is yet to commence and keeping a

person in confinement without trial would definitely

amounts to deprivation of personal liberty. Accordingly,

Mr. Dhal prays to grant bail to the appellants.

2.1. Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Sr.

counsel who is being assisted by Ms. Anwesha Mishra,

learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No.1075 of

2025 submits that even for a moment taking into

account the prosecution case, it is not a case of

U/S.103 of BNS since there was assault and counter

assault for a petty dispute and the appellants, the

deceased and the injured persons were celebrating

Deepavali by exploding fire-crackers and in the course

of such transaction, one of the fire-cracker hits to the

mother of the one of the injured-appellant Subham

Sharma and thereby, there was scuffle and the assault

and counter assault not being by any weapon of

offence, but by cricket stump, brick bat and batten, and

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 5 of 16

this shows that there was neither any pre-meditation

nor any prior planning for assaulting the deceased &

injured persons and by no stretch of imagination, the

case against the appellants be considered for offence

U/S.103 of IPC. It is also brought to the notice of the

Court that the appellants have sustained certain

injuries on their person. On these submissions, Mr.

Nayak, prays to grant bail to the appellants.

2.2. On the contrary, Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned

Addl. PP by placing the statements of injured witnesses

submits that not only the appellants have attacked the

deceased and injured persons, but also they have

attacked them brutally and the brutality demonstrated

by them itself is a ground to reject the bail applications

of the appellants. Mr. Pradhan, further submits that

since the trial is yet to commence and the appellants

have the potential to influence the witnesses, the bail

application of the appellants may kindly be rejected by

dismissing these criminal appeals.

2.3. In addition, Mr. Sarat Kumar Jena, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, injured

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 6 of 16

Pramod Mahananda, Pintu Singh and wife of the

deceased Badal Tandi and representing Mr. Deepak

Ranjan Parida, learned counsel for the rest of the

injured persons; submits that this Court by way of an

order passed on 24.03.2025 in CRLA No.1310 of 2024

has refused bail to one of the co-accused Akash Poddar

on the ground that trial is yet to commence and the

appellants has got a potential to influence the witnesses

and the appellants having been found on materials on

record for assaulting the deceased and injured persons,

their bail applications may not be considered favorably.

Mr. Jena further submits that there are enough

materials against the appellants to refuse bail to them

since the appellants have not only attacked the

deceased, but also the injured persons and they having

attacked them with batten (wooden cudgel) and cricket

stumps have caused death to the deceased as well as

inflicted injuries to other injured persons and trial

having not yet commenced, there is every possibility

that the appellants may influence the trial by gaining

over the injured and witnesses and, therefore, the bail

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 7 of 16

applications of the appellants may kindly be rejected by

dismissing these criminal appeals.

3. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that FIR

has been registered against the priest of Vaishno Devi

Temple, Sambalpur and four others, but the appellants

have been implicated in this case on the basis of

materials collected during the investigation, however,

the FIR was lodged on 02.11.2024 for the incident

occurring at 10.30AM on 01.11.2024, but the materials

on record disclose that the deceased as injured was

taken into hospital immediately after the occurrence,

but he subsequently died after some days while

undergoing treatment, whereas not only Pramod

Mahananda, Rahul Mahananda, Pintu Singh, Niranjan

Deep and Rahul Mugri from the side of the informant

had sustained injuries, but also the appellants

Abhimanyu Mishra, Aniket Mishra, Siddhant Sharma,

Akash Poddar and two to three others have sustained

injuries on their persons. The materials on record

disclose attack on the deceased & injured persons by

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 8 of 16

means of stick, wicket stump, kick and fist blows. On

this incident, not only the present FIR has been

registered, but also a counter case has been lodged

against the informant side by the appellants side on

02.11.2024 in Khetrarajpur PS Case No.251 of 2024.

The appellants are in judicial custody since 03.11.2024,

but even after submission of charge-sheet, the trial is

yet to commence and the appellants have already

suffered incarceration period for just little more than

one and half years.

4. Furthermore, the PM report of the

deceased discloses three external wounds, such as (i)

one stapled wound surgically made having 56 numbers

of metal pins over the head between frontal region

going over the vertex then over the right occipital area

up to the right temporal region, (ii) stitched wound

having one stitch present on upper lip and (iii) stitched

wound having one stitch present on mid of fronto

parietal area of head. The PM report of the deceased

also discloses one external injury of abraded contusion

of size 3cm X 3cm with black colour dry partially fallen

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 9 of 16

off scab present on left temporal area 4cm above left

ear pinna and the external wound no. (i) to (iii) are

opined to be caused as a result of surgical procedure as

a part of treatment procedure. It is further opined in

the PM report that the external injury (i) and internal

injuries could be due to hard and blunt force and

contact with rough surface or object collectively fatal in

ordinary course. The final opinion as to cause of death

of the deceased has been opined to be due to head

injury and complications and the external injury no.(i)

is suggestive of 1 to 2 weeks old prior to death.

5. In addition, the materials on record do not

disclose anything to suggest that the incident took

place with pre-meditation or prior planning, rather it

was a circumstance of transaction on the spur of

moment, however, one innocent person has lost his life

and some others suffered injury. Besides, grant of bail

to an accused should not be confused with his acquittal

since grant of bail is a transfer of the custody of the

accused from law to surety and the persons charged

with crime, if not having any past criminal history or he

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 10 of 16

being not a flight risk, bail can still be granted to him,

even though there is a prima facie case, if the situation

so demands. In this case, neither the prosecution nor

the informant or injured has brought to the notice of

the Court that any of the appellant is having any

criminal antecedent nor the prosecution has brought

any materials on record to suggest that the appellants

would pose flight risk, if released on bail. The

apprehension of the informant and the injured persons

for influencing the witnesses by the appellants can be

curbed by imposing appropriate conditions. Right to

speedy trial is also a fundamental right, but such right

must be balanced with the accusations inasmuch as a

person can be kept in confinement in accordance with

the law, which advocates and prescribes the right to

liberty and it is stated in Article 21 that no person shall

be deprived of his life or liberty except according to the

procedure establish by the law and, therefore, keeping

a person in confinement on a criminal charge cannot be

considered as a deprivation of liberty, but when the

liberty is curtailed for a long time without assurance of

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 11 of 16

trial, it would definitely amount to deprivation of

liberty.

6. In this case, the appellants have also taken

the plea of non-compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS as a

ground for grant of bail and accordingly, the response

of the Arresting Officer was sought for by this Court

and the SDPO, Sambalpur has filed two affidavits since

one affidavit was found deficient for the queries of the

Court because in the first affidavit, the SDPO has not

responded to all the queries of the Court, however, on

careful perusal of the second affidavit dated 17.12.2025

as sworn in by the SDPO, it reveals that the SI, Sanjay

Kumar Sahoo while arresting the accused persons have

informed the accused persons about the allegation

made in the FIR and the statement of complainant

recorded U/S.161 of CrPC and the accused persons

being fully aware about the reasons/grounds of arrest

have put their signatures in the arrest memo

respectively. Similarly, in the first affidavit, the said

SDPO has simply stated that the accused persons have

been arrested by the previous SI Sanjay Kumar Sahoo

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 12 of 16

on 03.11.2024 at 11.30AM after informing them the

grounds of arrest by obtaining their signatures on the

memo of arrest and Court surrender memo in the

presence of the witnesses. Neither in the first affidavit

nor in the second affidavit, the SDPO has annexed any

document to evidence that the grounds of arrest has

been communicated to the appellants, but the arrest

memos produced by the appellants itself disclose that it

is a printed template format, but no grounds of arrest

there has been enumerated at paragraph-8 of such

arrest memos and it has been stated therein that the

arrested person after being informed about the grounds

of arrest and his legal rights was duly taken into

custody, but there was no mention of any grounds of

arrest in the arrest memos. No doubt the arrest memo

contains the signature of the arrested person as well as

arresting officer, but the mode and manner of

communication of the grounds of arrest has not been

disclosed either in the affidavits or in the arrest memos.

Further, the affidavits also do not disclose the mode

and manner of communication of the grounds of arrest.

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 13 of 16

What has been communicated and how it has been

communicated has not been stated either in the

affidavits or in the arrest memos, but law cast a

constitutional duty on the arresting officer to inform the

arrestee the grounds of arrest. It is also true that in a

very recent judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs.

State of Maharashtra; (2026) 1 SCC 500, the Apex

Court has made certain guidelines and one of such

guidelines is communication of grounds of arrest in

writing to the arrestee in the language he/she

understands and such communication, if not possible

immediately after the arrest, it must be within two

hours prior to production of such accused before the

magistrate. It is also made further clear therein that

the written communication of grounds of arrest in the

language the arrestee understands would govern the

arrest prospectively, but this Court is of the considered

opinion that total non-compliance of the provision of

Sec.47 of BNSS is impermissible inasmuch as the same

is made mandatory in Art.22(1) of the Constitution of

India.

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 14 of 16

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances and taking into account the nature and

gravity of the offences as alleged against the appellants

vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against

them and keeping in view the stage of the case and the

trial having not yet commenced, even after submission

of charge-sheet and taking into account the pre-trial

detention of the appellants in custody and even if the

appellants stated to have been communicated the

grounds of arrest orally, but the affidavits of the SDPO

do not reveal any such thing, this Court without

expressing any view on merits of the case considers it

proper to admits each of the appellants to bail, but

subject to certain conditions.

8. Hence, the CRLAs stand allowed and the

impugned orders are hereby set aside. Consequently,

the appellants are directed to be released on bail on

furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 15 of 16

of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit

and proper by it with following conditions: -

(i) the appellants shall not contact the informant

and the injured persons and their family members;

(ii) the appellants shall not threaten/ influence/

induce/ terrorize/ coerce any of the witnesses

including the informant and her family members

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade them disclosing such facts before the

Court.

(ii) the appellants shall not leave the country

without prior permission of the trial Court.

(iii) In case the appellants misuse the liberty of

bail and in order to secure their presence,

proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS is issued and the

appellants fail to appear before the Court on the

date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned

trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceeding

against them for offence U/S.209 of BNS in

accordance with law;

(iv) the appellants shall report attendance before

the jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight

preferably on a 2

nd

Sunday in each month in

between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six (06) months

from the actual date of release from the custody.

The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station

shall not detain the appellants unnecessarily after

recording their attendance beyond the time as

stipulated.

CRLA Nos.517 of 2025 & other cases

Page 16 of 16

9. Accordingly, all these CRLAs stand disposed

of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated

to the concerned Court.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 06

th

day of July, 2026/Jayakrushna