Page 1 of 8. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2006 of 2026 Debi Prasanna Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Puspamitra Mohapatra Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Adv. -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Smt. Sasmita Nayak, ASC Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Adv. for Informant BLAPL No.3891 of 2026 Suryakanta Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Debasish Patnaik -versus- State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties Smt. Sasmita Nayak, ASC Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Adv. for Inforamnt BLAPL No.3892 of 2026 Gouri Prasan Behera ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Debasish Patnaik -versus- State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties Smt. Sasmita Nayak, ASC Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Adv. for Informant Page 2 of 8. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 12.05.2026 Order No. 04. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in BLAPL No.2006 of 2026, Mr. D. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in BLAPL No.3891 of 2026 as well as BLAPL No.3892 of 2026. 3. Smt. Sasmita Nayak, learned counsel for the State represented the Opposite Party-State in all the above noted three bail applications. 4. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Informant. 5. Perused the bail applications as well as the case diary and the copy of the FIR and other relevant documents produced before this Court in course of hearing of the bail applications. Since all the above noted bail applications arise out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.13 of 2026, which corresponds to G.R. Case No.20 of 2026 for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 191(2), 351(2), 324(2), 109, 115(2), 296 of BNS, 2023, since the factual background for all the three Petitioners is the same and that all three Petitioners stand in a similar footing so far the alleged crime is concerned, this Court took up all the three bail applications together for hearing and they are being disposed of by the following common Page 3 of 8. order. 6. As per the prosecution allegation, on 16.01.2026 the Informant lodged a written report before the IIC, Mahanga Police Station alleging commission of the offences as has been mentioned hereinabove and the same was registered as Mahanga P.S. Case No.13 of 2026. As per the prosecution allegation as has been culled out from the FIR is that on 16.01.2026, the Informant who is the father of the injured-Victim appeared at the police station and lodged a written report inter alia alleging that at about 2:00 P.M. on the very same day his son and other villagers were collecting Dana/ offering for organizing village Thakurani Yagna. At that moment some accused persons armed with weapons abused Manoj Pradhan in filthy language and assaulted him threatening dire consequences. When the son of the Informant made an attempt to rescue the above named Manoj, the accused persons assaulted him on his head. As a result of which, he fell down unconscious. Thereafter, the accused persons broke up on the door and windows of the Informant’s house and allegedly stolen some articles in the house of the Informant. On the basis of such allegation the FIR was registered by the Mahanga Police Station, and accordingly, investigation started. 7. Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in BLAPL No.2006 of 2026 contended before this Court that after registration of the FIR the Petitioner was arrested and taken into custody on 17.01.2026. He further submitted that since the date of his arrest the Petitioner is languishing in jail custody. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the meantime the investigation has progressed substantially and in the meantime a charge-sheet has been filed on 16.04.2026. In such Page 4 of 8. view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the investigation has been concluded and final charge-sheet has been filed, the detention of the Petitioner in custody is no more required. 8. With regard to the injury sustained by the injured persons, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that during the tussle between the two groups both sides have sustained injuries. He further contended that from the side of the Informant two persons have sustained injury, i.e. one Soumya Ranjan Rout and Manoj Pradhan. So far the injury sustained by Manoj Pradhan is concerned, it is stated that he has sustained simple injury. With regard to the injury sustained by Soumya Ranjan Rout, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that although he has sustained one grievous injury on his head, the same is by means of a blunt weapon and he has already been discharged from the hospital and is hale and hearty at the moment. 9. In course of his argument, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per the prosecution allegation as is evident from the story narrated in the FIR accused Dillip Kumar Sahoo assaulted the injured Soumya Ranjan Rout on his head. As a result of which, he has sustained grievous injury. So far the present Petitioners are concerned, it is stated that although they were present at the spot, they had no intention to cause any injury to the injured persons and that they did not participate in the assault. He further contended that there is no specific material which would indicate that the Petitioners participated in the assault and have caused any injury to the injured persons. As such, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that no case under Section 109 of the BNS Page 5 of 8. is made out against the present Petitioners. 10. With regard to the criminal antecedent of the present Petitioners learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that accused Debi Prasanna Behera has no criminal antecedent. Similarly, accused Suryakanta Sahoo has only one antecedent of Mahanga P.S. and accused Gouri Prasan Behera is also having one criminal antecedent of Mahanga P.S. In view of the aforesaid criminal track record of the accused persons, learned counsels appearing for the respective Petitioners submitted before this Court that the Petitioners be enlarged on bail on any stringent terms and conditions deemed proper by this Court, keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the allegation as well as maximum punishment that can be inflicted on the Petitioners in the event the allegation are found to be correct. 11. Smt. S. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the release of the Petitioners on bail on the ground of gravity and seriousness of the allegation. Further, she contended that the injured Soumya Ranjan Rout has sustained a grievous injury on his head. As such, a clear case under Section 109 of BNS is made out against all the accused persons. It was also contended that since the accused persons have criminal track record, their release on bail at this stage would encourage them to indulge in such type of crime in the locality. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the bail applications filed by the Petitioners are devoid of merit, and accordingly, the same should be rejected. 12. Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Informant on the other hand submitted that the allegations made against the accused- Page 6 of 8. Petitioners are very serious in nature. He further submitted that the accused persons created a reign of terror in the locality. It was also contended that some of the members of the Informant group have sustained injuries and injured Soumya Ranjan Rout has sustained grievous injury on his head for which he had to undergo treatment for several days as an indoor patient. Learned counsel for the Informant also expresses his apprehension that in the event the Petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood that they might threaten the prosecution witnesses including the Informant and other injured persons. 13. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Informant referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P and others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 188 and submitted before this Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle to be followed by the Courts while considering the bail applications of the accused persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid emphasis on a careful scrutiny of the bail applications, particularly keeping in view certain important factors like prima facie ground to believe, nature and gravity of the acquisition, severity of the punishment, danger of accused absconding, character and behavior of the accused persons, likelihood offence being repeated, apprehension of the witness being influenced and the danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. He further submitted that when the factual background of the present case is evaluated in light of the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgment, the Petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the Informant insisted that the present bail applications, being devoid Page 7 of 8. of merit, be dismissed at this juncture. 14. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, on a close scrutiny of the case diary as well as other materials placed on record in course of hearing, this Court observed that the Petitioners have been implicated as they were present at the spot of occurrence. Although there is no specific allegation of commission of any overt act on the part of the present Petitioners. There is clear evidence with regard to assault being made by accused Dillip Kumar Sahoo and Ghanashyam Sahoo. With regard to the present Petitioners there are no specific allegations of commission of any overt act. Moreover, the Petitioner Debi Prasanna Behera does not have any criminal antecedent and the other two Petitioners have one criminal antecedent each. 15. It is a fact that the investigation has been concluded and the final charge-sheet has been filed. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, learned counsel for the State confirmed with regard to the antecedent of the present Petitioners as has been indicated hereinabove. Learned counsel for the State also produced a copy of instruction dated 11.05.2026 of the IIC, Mahanga P.S., wherein he has categorically stated that he personally visited and verified the health condition of injured Soumya Ranjan Rout and Manoj Pradhan of village Bajapura under Mahanga P.S. On his verification he found that their health condition is good. A copy of the instruction dated 11.05.2026 is taken on record. Similarly, learned counsel for the State also filed a copy of the injury report, which reveals that the injured Manoj sustained one simple injury whereas injured Soumya Page 8 of 8. Ranjan Rout has sustained one grievous injury. On perusal of the materials, it appears that the injury was caused by accused Dillip Kumar Sahoo and Ghanashyam Sahoo, In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioners on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. The release of the Petitioners shall also be subject to such other terms and conditions as is deemed just and proper by the court in seisin over the matter. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 16. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioners be subject to the condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioners. In the event the Petitioners are having more than one criminal antecedent, this bail order shall stand automatically waived and the same shall not be given effect to. 17. Accordingly, the BLAPL applications stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the application as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout