Page 1 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.968 of 2026

CNR.ODHC010058162026

Debendra Kumar Paik …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

For Petitioner :

For Opposite Party :

Mr. T.N. Murty, Advocate

Mr. Sovan Panigrahi, ASC

Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.

(Informant)

BLAPL No.2107 of 2026

CNR.ODHC010150172026

Krushna Chandra

Behera

…. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

For Petitioner :

For Opposite Party :

Mr. D. Panda, Advocate

Mr. Sovan Panigrahi, ASC

Mr. S.K. Dash, Adv.

(Informant)

BLAPL/968/2026

ODHC010058162026

2026:OHC:206

Page 2 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

BLAPL No.3223 of 2026

CNR.ODHC010241332026

Siba Prasad Sahu @ Siba

Sankar Sahu

…. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

For Petitioner :

For Opposite Party :

Mr. A.K. Budhia, Advocate

Mr. Sovan Panigrahi, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14.10.2026

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Since all the BLAPLs relate to C.T. Case

No.150 of 2025 on the file of the learned District &

Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore, arising out of

CID (C.B.) P.S. Case No.17 of 2021, on the

consent of the parties, they are taken up together

and are disposed of by this common judgment.

Page 3 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

2. Heard learned counsel for the

Petitioners, learned counsel for the State and

learned counsel for the Informant.

3. The Petitioners are accused in connection

with C.T. Case No.150 of 2025, pending on the file

of learned District & Sessions Judge, Koraput,

Jeypore, arising out of CID, CB, P.S. Case No.17

of 2021 for alleged commission of offences under

Sections 304

1

/217

2

/218

3

/201

4

/34

5

of the Indian

1

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to

murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to

murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment

of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, an d

shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is

done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodi ly

injury as is likely to cause death;

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with

the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention

to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause

death.

2

217. Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to

save person from punishment or property from forfeiture .—

Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction o f

the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public

servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he

will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to

a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save,

or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from

forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to

two years, or with fine, or with both.

3

218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with

intent to save person from punishment or property from

forfeiture.—Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public

Page 4 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

“IPC”).

4. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits

that except the present BLAPLs, no other bail

application of the Petitioners relating to the

servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other wr iting,

frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be

incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will

thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with

intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby

save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or

knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture

or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished wi th

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to

three years, or with fine, or with both.

4

201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving

false information to screen offender .—Whoever, knowing or having

reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any

evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the

intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that

intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows

or believes to be false,

if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or

believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to

seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if punishable with imprisonment for life .—and if the offence

is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which

may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also

be liable to fine;

if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment .—and

if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not

extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the

description provided for the offence, for a term which may ext end to

one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provi ded for

the offence, or with fine, or with both.

5

34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common

intention.—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 5 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other

Court.

5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their

applications for bail U/s.483

6

of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the

learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,

Koraput, by orders dated 16.01.2026, 17.02.2026

and 26.03.2026 respectively in the

6

483. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session

regarding bail.—(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct,—

(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be

released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-

section (3) of Section 480, may impose any condition which it considers

necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;

(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing

any person on bail be set aside or modified:

Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall,

before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is

triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so

triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the

application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to

be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such

notice:

Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session

shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offe nce

triable under Section 65 or sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, give notice of the application for bail to

the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of

receipt of the notice of such application.

(2) The presence of the informant or any person authorised b y him

shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to

the person under Section 65 or sub-section (2) of Section 70 of t he

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

(3) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who

has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and comm it

him to custody.

Page 6 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

aforementioned cases, the present BLAPLs have

been filed.

6. Petitioner (Debendra Kumar Paik) in

BLAPL No.968 of 2026 is a constable, Petitioner

(Krushna Chandra Behera) in BLAPL No.2107 of

2026 is an Additional Sub-Inspector of Police, and

Petitioner (Siba Prasad Sahu @ Siba Sankar Sahu)

in BLAPL No.3223 of 2026 is an S.I. They have

been in custody since 29.08.2025 for allegedly

causing the death of one Akash Mahuria in custody

on 30.01.2017.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that all

three Petitioners are part of a police team, which

went to nab the deceased, a history sheeter.

It would be apposite to briefly note the

background in which the matter was entrusted to

CID (C.B.)

Page 7 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

7-A. On 30.01.2017, the Petitioners went to

arrest the deceased, Akash Mohuria, who was

involved in as many as 14 cases. It was stated

that the deceased, in his attempt to evade arrest

while fleeing on his motorcycle, fell down on Canal

Road and sustained multiple injuries. He was then

taken to the SD Hospital, Jeypore, where he was

referred to DHH, Koraput, where the deceased

succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.

7-B. In respect of the incident dated

30.01.2017, which resulted in the death of Akash

Mahuria, Jeypore Town P.S. FIR No.33 dated

30.01.2017 was registered at the instance of the

Petitioner (Siba Prasad Sahu @ Siba Sankar Sahu)

in BLAPL No.3223/2026 , against the deceased

Akash Mahuria under Section 279

7

/304-A

8

of IPC.

7

279. Rash driving or riding on a public way .—Whoever drives any

vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as

to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any

other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may

extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Page 8 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

Thereafter, on 22.06.2017, final report No.177

was submitted in the said case, which reads as

under;

“xxx xxx xxx

Final report abated against Late Akash Mohuria,

submitted Final Form Vide Jeypore Town P.S.

Final Form No.177 dated 22.06.2017,

U/s.279/304(A) as final report abated against

Late Akash Mohuria………………and closed the

investigation of the case.

xxx xxx xxx ”

7-C. Thereafter, the informant, the mother of

the deceased, approached the Odisha Human

Rights Commission alleging violation of human

rights as well as filed W.P.(C) No.18133 of 2017 in

this Court seeking compensation and appropriate

action against the errant police officials alleging

8

304-A. Causing death by negligence .—Whoever causes the death

of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting t o

culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or

with both.

Page 9 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

the custodial death of the said Akash Mahuria,

stating inter alia that the deceased was beaten to

death during the course of his arrest. In the light

of the recommendation of the OHRC, CID (C.B.)

FIR No.17 of 2021 was registered under Sections

342

9

/323

10

/325

11

/302

12

/506

13

/34

5

of IPC.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioners that admittedly, since

9

342. Punishment for wrongful confinement .—Whoever wrongfully

confines any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which

may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

10

323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt .—Whoever, except

in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall

be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one

thousand rupees, or with both.

11

325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt .—

Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, volun tarily

causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also

be liable to fine.

12

302. Punishment for murder .—Whoever commits murder shall be

punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to

fine.

13

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation .—Whoever commits

the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with

fine, or with both;

if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc .—and if the threat

be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any

property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death o r

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 10 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

the charge sheet has already been submitted and

the Petitioners are in custody for more than a year

and as all of them have their home and hearth

within the jurisdiction of the learned Court in

seisin and as trial is not progressing, further

continuance of the Petitioners in custody is not

warranted and, in fact, is punitive.

8-A. Per contra, it is the submission of the

learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sovan

Panigrahi, ASC that it is a case of death in custody

and taking into account that the Petitioners

(Debendra Kumar Paik and Krushna Chandra

Behera) in BLAPL Nos.968 and 2107 of 2026,

respectively, have been identified by the witnesses

and the Petitioner (Siba Prasad Sahu @ Siba

Sankar Sahu) in BLAPL No.3223 of 2026 is a

named accused, the Petitioners’ bail applications

do not merit consideration.

Page 11 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

8-B. Such submission is refuted by the

learned counsels, Mr. Murty and Mr. Panda

appearing for the Petitioners in BLAPL Nos.968

and 2107 of 2026, respectively, inter alia, on the

ground that the T.I. parade having been

conducted after long lapse of time and in view of

the wide and adverse publicity, no credence

should be attached to such T.I. parade.

9. Such submission is opposed by the

learned counsels for the Informant as well as

State.

9-A. Learned counsel for the State refers to

the statements of identifying witnesses, Babula

Pattnaik-CSW.26, regarding the complicity of

Debendra Kumar Paik (Petitioner in BLAPL No.968

of 2026) and also refers to the statements of

Kanta Kumari Das-CSW.8, Prasad Khillo-CSW.17,

Babula Pattnaik-CSW.26 and Shyama Khillo-

Page 12 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

CSW.27 relating to the role ascribed to Krushna

Chandra Behera (Petitioner in BLAPL No.2107 of

2026) and so far as Petitioner (Siba Prasad Sahu

@ Siba Sankar Sahu) in BLAPL No.3223 of 2026 is

concerned, he has relied on the statement of

Prasad Khillo-CSW.17, Sadan Bagh-CSW.37, Rahul

Machha-CSW.5 and Tulu Khosla-CSW.25.

9-B. Learned counsel for the Informant, Mr.

Dash, echoing the submissions of the learned

counsel for the State, submits that, taking into

account the repeated attempts to manipulate the

medical records to save the Petitioners and their

propensity to influence witnesses, the Petitioners

ought not to be enlarged on bail merely on the

ground of incarceration.

10. This Court carefully perused the

statement of the witnesses under Section 164

14

of

14

164. Recording of confessions and statements .—(1) Any

Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he

Page 13 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made

to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any

other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before

the commencement of the inquiry or trial:

Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-

section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the

presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence:

Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a pol ice

officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under

any law for the time being in force.

(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain

to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and

that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the

Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon

questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe t hat it is

being made voluntarily.

(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the perso n

appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make

the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such

person in police custody.

(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provide d in

Section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person an d

shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the

Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the

following effect:—

“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession

and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as

evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily

made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to

the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains

a full and true account of the statement made by him.

(Signed) A.B.

Magistrate.”

(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section

(1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for th e

recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted

to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power

to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.

(5-A)(a) In cases punishable under Section 354, Section 354-A, Section

354-B, Section 354-C, Section 354-D, sub-section (1) or sub-section

(2) of Section 376, Section 376-A, Section 376-AB, Section 376-B,

Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-DA, Section 376-DB,

Section 376-E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) ,

the Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the person against

whom such offence has been committed in the manner prescribed in

sub-section (5), as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to

the notice of the police:

Provided that if the person making the statement is temporarily or

permanently mentally or physically disabled, the Magistrate shall take

the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the

statement:

Page 14 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

Cr.P.C. (183 of BNSS) relied on by the

prosecution. All the statements unequivocally refer

to the factum of the deceased being mercilessly

assaulted and the assailants kept on twitting that

they are police personnel.

10-A. Shyama Khillo (CSW.27), in his

statement under Section 164

14

Cr.P.C., has

submitted that he saw one person going on a

motorcycle being assaulted with a pipe, resulting

in his fall and he also describes the subsequent act

of the said person being assaulted and later on

being taken in a jeep and he has identified Siba

Prasad Sahu @ Siba Sankar Sahu (Petitioner in

Provided further that if the person making the statement is

temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the

statement made by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or

a special educator, shall be videographed.

(b) A statement recorded under clause ( a) of a person, who is

temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, shall be

considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief, as specified in

Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) such that the

maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement,

without the need for recording the same at the time of trial.

(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this

section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be

inquired into or tried.

Corresponding Section: Section 183 of the BNSS.

Page 15 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

BLAPL No.3223 of 2026) at the site of occurrence,

stating that he (Siba Prasad Sahu @ Siba Sankar

Sahu) used to come to the locality for patrolling.

The statement of the said witness read in

the context of the allegation assumes significance

since it unerringly indicates that even the fall of

the deceased from the motorcycle is not accidental

as being portrayed.

11. So far as alleged death in custody is

concerned, the same has to be treated on a

different plane, since the guardians of the life and

limb of the citizen are facing the accusation.

The law laid down by the Apex Court in

the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

15

and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

16

underscores the obligation of the State and its

15

D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416.

16

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa,(1993) 2 SCC 746.

Page 16 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

agencies to safeguard the life and dignity of every

person in custody.

The constitutional guarantee under

Article 21 does not cease to operate qua a person

being taken into custody, rather, the duty to

ensure his safety assumes greater significance.

12. In this context, reliance can be placed on

the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State

of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar

17

, which has

been quoted with approval by the Apex Court in

the case of Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar

Pradesh

18

.

12-A. In the face of allegation of custodial

death, the norm that “bail is the rule, jail is the

exception”, as recognised in State of Rajasthan

17

State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar, (2024) 14 SCC 265 (Decided

on 06.03.2024).

18

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., (2024) 13 SCC 678 (Decided on

12.03.2024).

Page 17 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

v. Balchand

19

and restated over the years, has to

be applied having regard to the nature of the

accusation, the material collected during

investigation and the likelihood of the accused

influencing witnesses or otherwise obstructing the

course of justice.

Though the nature of the accusation, by

itself, cannot be the sole determinant, the totality

of the circumstances must guide the exercise of

jurisdiction while considering the prayer for bail.

13. It is trite that while considering the

prayer for grant of bail, seriousness of the offence,

circumstances which are unique to a case, of the

accused to tamper with evidence etc., have to be

considered.

The factors which should weigh in

consideration of bail application have been

19

State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308.

Page 18 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

succinctly stated in the case of Prasanta Kumar

Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee

20

, which reads as

under;

“9. We are of the opinion that the impugned

order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that

this Court does not, normally, interfere with

an order passed by the High Court granting

or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is

equally incumbent upon the High Court to

exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously

and strictly in compliance with the basic

principles laid down in a plethora of decisions

of this Court on the point. It is well settled

that, among other circumstances, the factors

to be borne in mind while considering an

application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or

reasonable ground to believe that the

accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the

event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or

fleeing, if released on bail;

20

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC

496.

Page 19 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

(v) character, behaviour, means, position

and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being

repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the

witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being

thwarted by grant of bail.”

14. Hence, the prayer for bail by the

Petitioners, i.e., Debendra Kumar Paik in BLAPL

No.968 of 2026, a constable, Krushna Chandra

Behera in BLAPL No.2107 of 2026 an Additional

Sub-Inspector of Police and Siba Prasad Sahu @

Siba Sankar Sahu) in BLAPL No.3223 of 2026 an

S.I. and leader of the team have to be considered

in the light of the decisions referred to herein

above.

15. It is no longer res integra that

incarceration alone cannot be the sole ground for

releasing an accused. While the period of

incarceration is a relevant factor, especially in

Page 20 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

view of the presumption of innocence and the

sacred right guaranteed under Article 21

21

, it

cannot be applied universally without considering

the specific factual matrix of each case. This

principle has to be applied with greater

circumspection in a case of this nature, where

police personnel, duty-bound to protect citizens'

lives, are themselves accused of committing the

offence.

Consequently, the mere ground of

prolonged incarceration, as urged, cannot be the

sole ground to consider the prayer for bail in the

facts of the present case.

16. On going through the statements of the

witnesses sought to be examined, it is seen that

they have not only described the role attributed to

the Petitioners in BLAPL Nos.968 and 2107 of

2026, who were identified, but also that of the

21

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 21 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

Petitioner in BLAPL No.3223 of 2026, who is a

named accused. Admittedly, he was the S.I. who

led the police party for the apprehension of the

deceased, who was a history-sheeter.

16-A. The description of the deceased as a

history-sheeter, however, cannot dilute the

constitutional protection available to him. The

right to life under Article 21

21

is not contingent

upon the antecedents or social standing of an

individual. The allegation of custodial violence

must, therefore, be examined on the basis of the

material on record and the applicable legal

principles, uninfluenced by the antecedents

attributed to the deceased.

At this juncture, this Court can do no

better than to refer to the immortal words of Sir

Robert Peel

22

, "We are not to forget that the

22

See Charles Reith, The Blind Eye of History (1952) (attributing the

principles to Sir Robert Peel).

Page 22 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

policeman is the public and the public is the

policeman."

Society governed by the rule of law

expects discipline, not death, in custody; for

custody is not a licence to keep Constitutional

Rights at bay.

17. The medical evidence establishes that

the deceased suffered 24 injuries. The post-

mortem report is extracted hereunder;

“The post-mortem examination was conducted at

1.40 P.M/31/1/17 under videography. Videography

was conducted by Hrushikesh Samal C/164, of

police station Koraput, video camera Panasonic

3CCD CAG xxx xxx

External injuries-

1. Abraded contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm with swelling

over mid occipital area.

2. Abrasion of 3cm x 2 cm present over left side

cheek just outer to left eye.

3. Abraded contusion of size 5 cm x 3 cm present

over right side abdomen just below costal margin.

4. Contusion present in an area of size 22 cm x 12

cm involving right elbow and posterior aspect of

right lower arm.

5. 2 nos of abraded contusion of size 4cm x 2 cm

and 3cm x 2 cm present over outer aspect of

right wrist.

Page 23 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

6. Abrasion of size 3cm x1 cm present over right

knuckle.

7. Contusion present in an area of size 45cm x 18

cm involving posterior aspect of left arm, left

elbow and exterior aspect of left forearm

8. Contusion of size 10cm x 8cm present over

dorsum of left hand

9. Abrasion of size 2cm x1cm present over the left

index finger

10. 4-5 nos. of small abraded contusions of size 1cm

x1cm to 2cm x 1cm present over right scapular

area.

11. Abrasion of size 5cm x 3cm present over back of

left shoulder close to neck

12. Multiple (10-12 nos) small abrasions and abraded

contusion of size ranging from 1cm x 1cm to 3cm

x 2cm present in an area of size 30cm x 15 cm

over right side lower back.

13. Multiple (8-10 nos) of abrasions and abraded

contusions of size 1cm x1cm to 6cm x 2cm

present over left side lower back close to hip

14. Multiple small abrasions and contusions of size

0.5cm x 0.5 cm to 3cm x 1 cm present over right

hip area in an area size 12cm x 8cm

15. Abraded contusion of size 8cm x 2 cm present

over outer aspect of left thigh.

16. Contusion in an area of size 40cm x 24 cm

involving outer aspect left lower thigh, left knee

and upper half of the left leg.

17. Multiple (8-10nos) small abrasions of size 1cm x

1cm to 4cm x 3 cm present over outer aspect left

upper leg.

18. 4 nos of abraded contusions of size 2cm x1cm to

5cm x 3 cm over medial aspect of left upper leg

and back of knee.

19. Contusion present over entire lower half of right

thigh, right knee and both outer and inner aspect

of right leg.

20. Abrasion in an area of size 20cm x 12 cm over

from medial aspect of right upper leg.

21. Abrasion in an area of size 15cm x 10 cm over

outer aspect of right lower thigh

22. Lacerated wound of size 3cm x 2 cm present over

medial aspect of left heel;

Page 24 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

23. Lacerated wound of size 2cm x 1 cm present over

right heel;

24. Palpable fracture deformity of middle portion of

right leg. (right tibia)

On dissection:- Scalp-intact, Skull- 25. Linear fissure

fracture of length about 10 cm present on right

occipital bone.

Meninges-Intact and congested.

Brain Matter-Inner layer of subdural hemorrhage &

sub-arachnoid

hemorrhage present on occipital lobe. Both occipital

lobe and frontal lobe contused.

Chest wall-Intact. Both the lungs are intact and pale.

Heart is intact and all chambers are empty.

On cut section of contused part(right & left leg) there

is diffused extravasation of blood into the underneath

tissues and muscles. On cut section of right leg-

fracture and dislocation of middle portion of right tibia

and surrounding tissues are hemorrhaged and

extravasation of blood.

Opinion:- All injuries are ante mortem in nature and

caused due to impact with hard and blunt

surface/object.”

Per contra, it is submitted by the learned

counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the

injuries sustained by the deceased are accidental

in nature and caused because the deceased fell

down from the motorcycle and to substantiate the

Page 25 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

submission, they referred to medical opinions

given by the medical officers.

The contention was vehemently objected by

the learned counsel appearing for the state as well as

the informant, contending the injuries are resultant of

the assault made by the Petitioners and only to justify

the unjustified, attempt has been made to give it a

colour of accident and such brazen attempt is evident

from the multiple medical opinions sought in this

regard.

18. The Petitioners are police personnel, who are

alleged to have been involved in an occurrence

resulting in alleged custodial death. Considering

the nature of the allegations, the materials on

record, particularly the statements of the

witnesses and the circumstances noticed

hereinabove, the medical evidence indicating 24

injuries on the person of the deceased, the

allegations regarding attempts to obtain multiple

Page 26 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

medical opinions solely to suit the Petitioners and

absolve them of the charges and the apprehension

of the witnesses, who have sought protection, this

Court is of the considered view that the

Petitioners’ release at this stage would undermine

the sanctity of the trial.

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail

to the Petitioners at this stage.

However, the Petitioners shall be at

liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the

Trial Court, if so advised, upon examination of the

material witnesses.

Needless to state, in the event such an

application is made, the same shall be considered

on its own merit.

19. At the cost of brevity, it is stated that

the observations made herein are confined to the

Page 27 of 27

BLAPL Nos.968, 2107, 3223 of 2026

adjudication of the present bail applications and

shall not be construed as an expression of opinion

by this Court on the merits of the allegation qua

the Petitioners, which has to be established in an

independent manner, in the trial.

Learned Court in seisin shall make an

endeavour to conclude of the trial as expeditiously

as possible.

Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of.

(V. Narasingh)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 14

th

October, 2026/Santoshi

14.10.2026/Uploaded