As per case facts, Basant Biswal, Chairman of Paradeep Municipality, lodged an FIR alleging that three unknown individuals on a red motorcycle threw bottle bombs at his house, two of ...
Page 1 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
CNR. ODHC010432262026
Bapu @ Jyotikanta
Parida
…. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha …. Opposite Party
For Petitioner :
Mr. A. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA
Mr. L. Samantaray, Sr. Adv.
(Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29.08.2026
V. Narasingh, J. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned
Senior Counsel, along with Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State and
Mr. Samantaray, learned Senior Counsel for the
Informant.
1. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with G.R. Case No.490 of 2026 pending
on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Kujanga, arising out
of Paradeep P.S. Case No.147 of 2026 for
commission of offences punishable under Sections ABLAPL/6750/2026
ODHC010432262026
2026:OHC:73
Page 2 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
3
1
and 4
2
of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
along with Section 288
3
/3(5)
4
of BNS.
1
3. Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or
property.—Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by—
(a) any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger
life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to
person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished w ith
imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment of either
description which shall not be less that ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine;
(b) any special category explosive substance an explosion of a nature
likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to proper ty shall,
whether any injury to person or property has been actually cause d or
not, be punished with death, or rigorous imprisonment for life, and shall
be liable to fine
2
4. Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or for making or
keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property .— Any
person who unlawfully and maliciously—
(a) does any act with intent to cause by an explosive substance or
special category explosive substance, or conspires to cause by an
explosive substance or special category explosive substance, an
explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to
property; or
(b) makes or has in his possession or under his control any explosive
substance or special category explosive substance with intent by means
thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property, or to enable
any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause seri ous
injury to property in India.
shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place and whether
any injury to person or property has been actually caused to n ot, be
punished,—
(i) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for life,
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(ii) in the case of any special category explosive substance, with
rigorous imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine
3
288. Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance .—
Whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or
negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or
injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omit s to take
such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient
to guard against any probable danger to human life from that
substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend
to five thousand rupees, or with both.
4
3. General explanations .— (5) When a criminal act is done by
several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done
by him alone.
Page 3 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
2. The gist of the allegation of the prosecution
is that one Basant Biswal, Chairman of Paradeep
Municipality, lodged an FIR stating that on the
same date, at about 7.35 P.M., while he was
absent from his house, three unknown culprits
came on a red-coloured motorcycle and threw
bottle bombs towards his house. Out of three such
bombs, two exploded, filling the area with smoke.
At that time his wife was offering evening prayer.
Hearing the shouts of his family members and
neighbours rushed to the spot, the culprits fled
away on their motorcycle.
On the basis of such complaint, the FIR in
question was instituted and investigation was
taken up in right earnest.
2-A. It is apposite to note that during the course
of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court
that, in the meanwhile, the FIR has been altered to
include Sections 61(2)
5
, 109(1)
6
, 326(g)
7
, 351(3)
8
5
61. Criminal conspiracy .— (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy,—
(a) to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life
or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall,
where no express provision is made in this Sanhita for the punishment
of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence;
(b) other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
6
109. Attempt to murder .—(1) Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that
act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
Page 4 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
and 3(5)
4
of the BNS, read with Sections 3
1
and 4
2
of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. A. Mohanty, assisted by Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel for the Petitioner, that because the
Petitioner is in public life, he is being sought to be
entangled in the case at hand, though the FIR is
against unknown persons.
And, taking into account the materials on
record, the allegation under the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 is ex facie not made out
and, therefore, the Petitioner be enlarged on pre-
arrest bail.
4. It is also submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner that the basis of the
accusation, at best, is based on the statement of
the co-accused and the same has to be viewed in
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person
by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life,
or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
7
326. Mischief by injury, inundation, fire or explosive substance,
etc.— (g) fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or
knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any
building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human
dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
8
351. Criminal intimidation .— (3) Whoever commits the offence of
criminal intimidation by threatening to cause death or grievous hurt, or
to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a
woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Page 5 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
the backdrop of the attempt of the investigating
agency, acting on extraneous considerations, to
somehow rope in the present Petitioner so that he
is put behind bars.
It is strenuously urged that even if the entire
allegation is accepted at its face value, the
allegation can, at best, attract Section 3(5)
4
of the
BNS. In the given circumstances, custodial
interrogation is not at all warranted.
5. Such submission is opposed with equal
vehemence by the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State, Mr. P.S. Nayak, as well as
Mr. Samantaray, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Informant.
6. To fortify his submission regarding the
complicity of the Petitioner, learned counsel for the
State relied on the statement of one of the co-
accused, Trilochan Pradhan, who has stated that
the attack in question was perpetrated at the
behest of the Petitioner.
Similarly, learned counsel for the State also
relied on the statements of the co-accused,
namely, Soumya Ranjan Palai and Sidhant Biswal.
And, referring to the statement of one
Antaryami Barik, it is sought to be established that
Page 6 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
his bike was taken by two of the co-accused,
Sidhanta Biswal and Tulu @ Trilochan Pradhan.
And, referring to the statement of one Bishnu
Charan Rout, it is stated that there was an attempt
to procure petrol from the petrol pump by the co-
accused. And, relying on the prima facie complicity
of the co-accused and referring to their
statements, it is stated that the same unerringly
points to the involvement of the Petitioner.
It is submitted that referring to the
Petitioner’s numerous criminal antecedents,
custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is
imperative to unearth the truth.
7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State, as well as Mr. Samantaray,
learned Senior Counsel for the Informant, further
submit that there is no embargo to refer to a co-
accused's statement during investigation and the
same can also be taken into account while
considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail.
8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the
State that initially the Petitioner did not join the
investigation, though at a later stage he appeared.
But, the same is symbolical during the currency of
interim protection and the same ought not to
weigh with this Court.
Page 7 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner,
Mr. Mohanty, refers to the additional affidavit filed
at the behest of the Petitioner, clarifying the
criminal antecedents.
The criminal antecedents of the Petitioner,
which are in tabular form, are extracted
hereunder:
SL.
No.
P.S. CASE No. OFFENCES STATUS
1. Paradeep P.S. Case No.178
dt.20.07.2000
U/s.452/341/
323/506/380/
294/34 of IPC
Acquitted
2. Paradeep PS
No- 204, dt.
18.08.2000
U/S- 341/ 323/
324/ 307/ 379/
34 of IPC.
Acquitted
3. Paradeep PS
Case No-96, dt.10.04.2001
U/S- 341/ 323/
325/ 294/ 506/
34 of IPC.
Acquitted
4. Paradeep P.S
Case No-137,
dt.-20.05.2001
U/S.341/ 323/
294/ 452/ 336/
354/ 506/ 34
of lPC.
Acquitted
5. Paradeep P.S
Case No-148,
dt.-02.06.2001
U/S-341/ 323/
294/ 506/ 34
of IPC
Acquitted
6. Paradeep P.S
Case No-194,
dt.-31.07.2001
U/S-341/ 294/
324/ 307/ 379/
34 of IPC
Acquitted
7. Paradeep P.S
Case No-125,
dt.-27.05.2002
U/S-341/ 323/
324/ 325/ 506/
34 of IPC.
Acquitted
8. Paradeep P.S
Case No.143,dt.
13.06.2002
U/S-341/ 294/
307/ 324/ 506/
34 of IPC
Acquitted
9. Paradeep P.S
Case No-158,
dt.-04.07.2002
U/S-341/ 324/
307/ 506/ 34
of IPC
Acquitted
10. Paradeep P.S
Case No-41, dt.26.02.2003
U/S-506/34 of
IPC
Acquitted
11. Paradeep P.S Case No-87, U/S- 395 of Acquitted
Page 8 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
dt. 28.05.2003 IPC/25 Arms
Act
12. Paradeep P.S
Case No.105, dt.
27.05.2003
U/S-395/397 of
IPC and 25/27
of Arms Act
Acquitted
13. Paradeep P.S
Case No-37,dt.
08.02.2005
U/S- 342/395
of IPC and 25
and 27 of Arms
Act
Acquitted
14. Paradeep P.S
Case No-50, dt.
21.02.2005
U/S-302/
120(B)/ 34 of
IPC and
25/27 of Arms
Act
Acquitted
15. Paradeep P.S
Case No-95, dt.
7.04.2007
U/S- 506/34 of
IPC
Acquitted
16. Paradeep P.S
Case No-337,
dt.-01.12.2007
U/S-384/ 341/
448/ 506/ 507/
34 of IPC
Acquitted
in the
year
2012
17. Paradeep P.S
Case No-348,
Dt.-10.12.2007
U/S- 507/ 384/
506/ 34 of IPC
Acquitted
18. Paradeep P.S
Case No-59, dt.
28.02.2008
U/s.386/ 387/
507/ 34 of IPC
Acquitted
19. Paradeep P.S
Case No-72,dt.
20.03.2009
U/S-341/ 294/
506/ 34 of IPC
and 27 of Arms
Act.
Bail
granted
20. Paradeep P.S
Case No.143,dt.
25.07.2009
U/S.307/ 506/
427/ 379/ 411/
120(B)/ 34 of
IPC and 9 (b)
I.E Act and
25/27 of Arms
Act.
Acquitted
21. Paradeep P.S
Case No-144,
dt.-26.07.2009
U/S-427/ 506/
34 of IPC/ and
9(b) of I.E Act.
Acquitted
22. Paradeep P.S
Case No.174,
dt.06.09.2009
U/S-506/ 307/
34 of IPC and
25/27 of Arms
Act.
Acquitted
23. Paradeep P.S. Case No.185
dt. 25.09.2009
U/s.307/ 506/
385/ 34 of IPC
Acquitted
Page 9 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
and 25/27 of
Arms Act
24. Paradeep P.S
Case No.147,
dt.30.05.2026
U/S-288/ 3(5)
of BNS/Sec-3
&4 of Explosive
Substance Act.
Present
Case
25. Kujanja PS Case
No-12,dt.07.02.2009
U/S.341/ 323/
379/ 427/ 506/
34 of IPC
Acquitted
26. Abhayachandpur P.S. case
no.172 dt.24.12.2012
U/s.143/ 447/
506/ 149 IPC
Released
on bail
vide HC
order
dt.08.01.
2013
27. Abhayachandpur P.S. Case
No.14 dt.27.02.2017
U/s.341/ 294/
506/ 34 of IPC
Released
on bail
vide
ABLAPL
No.4056
of 2017
9-A. And, referring to the same, it is said that in
the cases at Serial Nos. 1 to 23 (except Serial No.
19) and 25, the Petitioner has been acquitted. In
the cases at Serial Nos. 19 and 26, the Petitioner
has been released on bail by this Court and in the
case at Serial No. 27, the Petitioner has been
released on pre-arrest bail.
9-B. Learned counsel for the State, with his usual
fairness, has stated that the orders of acquittal
have attained finality.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that since 2018 to 2026, there is no
allegation of the Petitioner having involved himself
Page 10 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
in the commission of any offence and, referring to
the alleged involvement of the Petitioner in the
case at hand it is restated that the case at hand
has been instituted only in order to give vent to
political vendetta. Therefore, the criminal
antecedents in themselves ought not to weigh with
this Court in considering the prayer for pre-arrest
bail.
11. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. P.S.
Nayak, relied on the order of the Apex Court in the
case of Sharad Sehgal v. State of U.P.
9
to fortify
his submission that anticipatory bail should not be
granted in the light of criminal antecedents.
Paragraph 5 of the said order is extracted
hereunder:
“5. It is very unfortunate that the High Court
thought fit to release an accused on
anticipatory bail against whom there are 22
FIRs registered for different offences. As on
date also, he is in judicial custody in
connection with some crime.”
(Emphasized)
12. He also further relied on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad
9
Sharad Sehgal v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 740.
Page 11 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
v. State of Bihar
10
and, seeking custodial
interrogation, reliance was placed on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of State represented
by the State rep. by the C.B.I. v. Anil
Sharma
11
.
13. It is no longer res integra that anticipatory
bail is specie of post arrest bail and the principles
which weigh with the Court in considering the bail
application of an accused in custody are equally
germane for deciding a pre-arrest bail application.
[Ref.: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau
of Investigation and another
12
]
14. So far as antecedents, while dealing with
prayer for pre-arrest bail is concerned, the Apex
Court, in its recent judgment delivered in the case
of Ankit Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
13
,
while dealing with an anticipatory bail granted to
an accused having criminal antecedents, has held
that though criminal record cannot be overlooked
while considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail, the
consideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail
ought not to be circumscribed solely on account of
criminal proclivity, and the criminal antecedents
cannot, by themselves, operate as a fetter on the
10
Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 14 SCC 516.
11
State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187.
12
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452.
13
Ankit Mishra v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 809.
Page 12 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
consideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail.
The seriousness of the crime, the severity of the
punishment and the prima facie role ascribed to
the Petitioner have to be gone into independently.
15. Balancing the right of the investigating
agency to conduct a free and fair probe into the
allegations, which are no doubt serious, with the
fundamental right of the accused guaranteed
under Article 21
14
of the Constitution, the rival
contentions have to be considered on the
touchstone of the aforementioned judgments of
the Apex Court.
16. It is trite that pre-arrest bail is an
“exceptional remedy”, but the same has been
enacted to ensure constitutional safeguards against
motivated incarceration. Admittedly, in the case at
hand, it is not the case of the prosecution that the
Petitioner was one of the motorcyclists who hurled
the petrol bombs. The allegation against the
Petitioner is of conspiracy and the entire foundation
of such allegation is based on the statements of
the co-accused, who are in custody. Though there
is no embargo on taking into account the
statement of a co-accused at the stage of
14
21. Protection of life and personal liberty .—No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.
Page 13 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
investigation [Ref.: Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan
15
], the same has to be balanced
against the right of an accused who is presumed to
be innocent till found guilty, which is the
foundation of law that governs Indian criminal
jurisprudence.
17. This court is not oblivious of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Anil Sharma
(supra)
11
relating to the distinction of custodial
interrogation with and without protective umbrella
of an order of interim protection during currency of
hearing of an anticipatory bail or post grant of pre-
arrest bail. In the facts of the given case, this
Court is not persuaded to hold that the decision in
the case of Anil Sharma (supra)
11
has any
application.
It cannot be ignored that from 2018 to 2026,
the Petitioner has not been accused of the
commission of any offence and the prosecution has
not been able to persuade this Court that there is
any scope for the Petitioner to abscond or interfere
with the ongoing investigation.
In fact, it is the grievance of the Petitioner
that because of political rivalry and vendetta, he is
at the receiving end.
15
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42.
Page 14 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
Even otherwise, the Petitioner can be put to
terms to allay any such apprehension of the
prosecution. It is also on record that though
initially the Petitioner did not cooperate, thereafter,
the Petitioner has joined the investigation though
the same is to be ignored as pleaded by the
prosecution.
18. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials
on record and in the light of the law as discussed
above, this Court is of the considered view that
custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is not
warranted in the case at hand.
19. Hence, it is directed that in the event of
arrest of the Petitioner in connection with the
aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail by the
Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as
deemed just and proper, with further conditions
that he will cooperate with the investigation.
Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner
shall not leave the State of Odisha without
providing specific information regarding his
movement to the I.O. and the jurisdictional Court.
He shall not leave the country without the
permission of the Court in seisin, till the conclusion
of the investigation.
Page 15 of 15
ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026
20. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
21. U.C.C. as per rules.
(V. NARASINGH )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 29
th
August, 2026/Santoshi
29.08.2026 Uploaded
In a significant ruling, the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack recently addressed a plea for Pre-Arrest Bail India in a case involving serious charges under the Explosive Substances Act cases. The judgment in *Bapu @ Jyotikanta Parida v. State of Odisha* (ABLAPL No.6750 of 2026, CNR. ODHC010432262026), delivered on August 29, 2026, by JUSTICE V. NARASINGH, sheds light on the nuanced approach courts take when balancing an accused's right to liberty against the prosecution's need for custodial interrogation, especially when allegations of political vendetta and a history of past cases are involved. This detailed analysis, also available with 2-minute audio briefs on CaseOn, explores the court's reasoning and the implications of its decision.
The central legal question before the High Court was whether to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, Bapu @ Jyotikanta Parida, who was accused in connection with a bomb attack case. The charges included serious offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complexity of the issue was amplified by the Petitioner's extensive history of prior criminal cases and the prosecution's strong insistence on custodial interrogation.
The Court's decision was guided by a comprehensive framework of statutory provisions and judicial precedents:
The case originated from an FIR lodged by Basant Biswal, Chairman of Paradeep Municipality, who alleged that unknown culprits threw bottle bombs at his house, causing two explosions. During the investigation, the FIR was altered to include more severe sections, and the Petitioner, Bapu @ Jyotikanta Parida, was implicated. The prosecution's case against Parida primarily rested on the statements of co-accused individuals (Trilochan Pradhan, Soumya Ranjan Palai, Sidhant Biswal, Antaryami Barik, and Bishnu Charan Rout), who claimed the attack was perpetrated at Parida's behest and that his bike was used.
Parida, a figure in public life, contended that he was being falsely implicated due to political vendetta. His counsel argued that the allegations under the Explosive Substances Act were *ex facie* not made out and that, at best, the charges might attract Section 3(5) of the BNS. He further argued that custodial interrogation was unwarranted.
The Petitioner's criminal record, presented in a tabular form, showed a history of 27 cases. However, significantly, 23 of these cases resulted in acquittal, and in the remaining, he had been granted bail. A crucial point highlighted by the Petitioner was the absence of any fresh allegations against him from 2018 to 2026.
The Court carefully considered these antecedents. While acknowledging the prosecution's reliance on *Sharad Sehgal* regarding the impact of criminal history on bail, it found the principles laid down in *Ankit Mishra* more pertinent. *Ankit Mishra* instructs courts not to let criminal records be the *sole* determinant, urging an independent assessment of the current crime's seriousness, potential punishment, and the accused's prima facie role. In this specific context, the 2-minute audio briefs on CaseOn.in can be particularly helpful for legal professionals to quickly grasp the court's interpretation of such precedents and their application.
The prosecution vigorously pressed for custodial interrogation, citing the need to unearth the truth and relying on *Prem Shankar Prasad* and *Anil Sharma*. However, the High Court observed that it was not the prosecution's case that the Petitioner was one of the motorcyclists who physically hurled the bombs. The allegation against him was one of conspiracy, based entirely on co-accused statements.
The Court noted that while there is no embargo on considering co-accused statements during investigation (*Kalyan Chandra Sarkar*), this must be balanced against the fundamental right of an accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court further found that the specific circumstances of *Anil Sharma*, distinguishing custodial interrogation with and without protective umbrella, did not apply to the current facts.
Crucially, the Court was not persuaded that the Petitioner would abscond or interfere with the ongoing investigation. It also took note of the Petitioner's grievance regarding political vendetta. While acknowledging the Petitioner's initial non-cooperation, it highlighted his later participation in the investigation.
The High Court ultimately concluded that custodial interrogation of Bapu @ Jyotikanta Parida was not warranted. Recognizing pre-arrest bail as an 'exceptional remedy' designed to provide constitutional safeguards against motivated incarceration, the Court decided to grant bail.
Accordingly, the ABLAPL was disposed of with the following directions:
This judgment serves as a critical precedent for several reasons:
For legal professionals and students studying criminal law, this case offers valuable insights into the practical application of anticipatory bail principles, particularly in politically charged or complex cases involving multiple accused and serious offences like those under the Explosive Substances Act.
All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal issues.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....