Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2457 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.) Jitendra Kumar Ransingh …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha and Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devasish Panda, Advocate For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC Mr. Somanath Padhan, Adv. Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-09.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.04.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to set aside the order dated 27.06.2022 passed in S.T. Case No.138 of 2012, whereby the learned trial court, in exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, arraigned the petitioner as an additional accused and directed fresh trial proceedings. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 2 (i) The case arises out of Fategarh P.S. Case No. 71 dated 13.06.2012, registered on the basis of the report lodged by Rajendra Khirabdhi Tanaya Kanta regarding the murder of his father, Gurubari Kanhar, and the injuries caused to one Rama Swain. In the FIR, it was alleged that while the deceased and Rama Swain were returning on motorcycles after attending a proceeding under Section 107 CrPC at Bhapur Tahasil Office, they were attacked by a group of named persons. (ii) The FIR named several persons, including Gayadhar Parida, Jyotiranjan Panda and Dasarathi Das, and alleged that the occurrence was the result of prior conspiracy. The prosecution version was that the deceased had raised objections to corruption in Bhapur Block and had also opposed Gayadhar Parida’s candidature for the post of Chairman of Bhapur Block. (iii) Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against only nine accused persons and did not send up Gayadhar Parida, Jyotiranjan Panda and certain others for trial. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed against the charge-sheeted accused and trial proceeded. (iv) The record further discloses that, in the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as thirty-five witnesses in support of its case. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, and at a stage immediately preceding the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an application dated 21.04.2022 was filed invoking the jurisdiction of the learned trial court under Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 3 Section 319 CrPC. By way of the said application, it was prayed that Gayadhar Parida, Jyotiranjan Panda and Dasarathi Das be summoned and arrayed as additional accused persons, on the premise that evidence had surfaced during trial indicating their involvement in the alleged occurrence. The application under Section 319 CrPC was moved on the basis of the evidence that had surfaced during trial, particularly the depositions of PW-7, PW-8, PW-11, PW-18 and PW-25, which allegedly disclosed prior meetings, threats, conspiracy, and the presence and participation of the proposed accused in the events leading to the murder. (v) By order dated 27.06.2022 passed in S.T. Case No. 138 of 2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh, allowed the application preferred under Section 319 CrPC and consequently directed that Gayadhar Parida, Jyotiranjan Panda and Dasarathi Das be impleaded as additional accused persons and summoned to face trial. The learned court further ordered that, in conformity with the mandate of Section 319(4) CrPC, a de novo trial be conducted qua the newly arraigned accused. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner’s case is that Gayadhar Parida was specifically named in the FIR as one of the principal conspirators behind the murder of Gurubari Kanhar, but despite serious allegations and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 4 material collected during investigation, he was deliberately left out of the charge sheet owing to his political influence and clout. (ii) It is contended that the deceased had been vocal against corruption in Bhapur Block, especially in relation to NREGS and flood relief matters, and had also opposed Gayadhar Parida in the local political sphere. According to the petitioner, this provided the motive for the conspiracy. (iii) The petitioner contends that, during the course of trial, cogent and consistent evidence emerged through the testimonies of several prosecution witnesses indicating that Gayadhar Parida was actively involved in the pre-occurrence conspiracy. It is asserted that such evidence discloses his participation in prior meetings where the alleged plan was hatched, his role in issuing threats to the deceased and his continued association with the other accused persons on and prior to the date of occurrence, thereby prima facie pointing to his complicity in the alleged offence. (iv) To buttress the argument the Petitioner has relied in the Supreme Court Judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab1, the Constitution Bench held that the power is extraordinary and discretionary, to be exercised sparingly, and only where strong and cogent evidence emerges from the evidence led before the Court. The degree of satisfaction is higher than the on applied at the stage of framing charge, though short of a conclusive finding 1 (2014) 3 SCC 92 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 5 of guilt the Court also made it clear that the trial court need not wait for cross examination if the examination in itself yields the requisite level of satisfaction. (v) Moreover, in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab2, the Constitution Bench reaffirmed the stage and procedure for exercise of such power and made it clear that once the power is exercised, the law itself contemplates a fresh commencement of proceedings against the newly summoned accused. (vi) The petitioner places particular reliance on the depositions of PW-7, PW-11, PW-18 and PW-25 to contend that the role attributed to Gayadhar Parida is neither vague nor merely inferential, but specific, direct and supported by consistent ocular testimony. It is further submitted that these witnesses collectively disclose a coherent pattern of conduct comprising prior meeting of mind, active instigation, issuance of threats, and concerted action in furtherance of the alleged occurrence, thereby demonstrates a strong prima facie basis for invoking the power under Section 319 CrPC. It is the petitioner’s stand that the application under Section 319 CrPC was therefore justified, since the evidence recorded during trial was sufficient to summon Gayadhar Parida and others for being tried together with the already arraigned accused. The petitioner maintains that the learned trial court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC by passing the order dated 27.06.2022. 2 (2023) 1 SCC 289 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 6 (vii) In the broader challenge now raised by the petitioner is that although Gayadhar Parida was later summoned under Section 319 CrPC on the basis of strong trial evidence and despite the summoning order being upheld up to the Supreme Court, he was granted bail on 24.05.2023 in a mechanical manner on the same day of surrender, without proper consideration of the gravity of the offence, the evidentiary material against him, or the distinct footing on which an accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC stands. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. (i) The Opposite Party was enlarged on bail pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court. The learned Trial Court, while allowing the bail application, duly considered the attendant circumstances, including the fact that all the co-accused had already been granted bail, and accordingly exercised its judicial discretion in a fair, judicious, and reasoned manner. (ii) He further submitted that there is neither any perversity nor any unwarranted consideration, nor any non-consideration of material facts, so as to warrant inference with the just and proper exercise of judicial discretion by the learned Trial Court. It is further to submit that the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 7 this Court has remained unchallenged, thereby lending further sanctity and finality to the impugned order. (iii) The Opp. Party placed reliance in the Supreme Court judgment in Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat3, and the same was reiterated in Himanshu Shrama v. Sate of Madhya Pradesh4, wherein it was held that: “18. As it is evident from the rival stands one thing is clear that the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. There is no dispute to this position. But the question is if the Trial Court while acting bail acts on irrelevant materials or takes into account irrelevant materials whether bail can be cancelled. Though it was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that aspects to be dealt with while considering the application for cancellation of bail and on appeal against the grant of bail, it was fairly accepted that there is no scope of filing an appeal against the order of grant of bail. Under the scheme of the Code the application for cancellation of bail can be filed before the Court granting the bail of t is a Court of Sessions, or the High Court”. (iv) It is further submitted that all the co-accused, against whom specific allegations of having committed the actual assault have been made, have already been enlarged on bail either by this Court or pursuant to directions to surrender and seek regular bail before the learned Trial Court. (v) The orders granting such bail have not been challenged before any higher forum and have thus attained finality. In such 3 2008 (13) SCC 584 4 2024 (4) SCC 222 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 8 circumstances, the principle of parity squarely governs the present case. The Opp. Party further contends that the bail orders passed in favour of the other co-accused, who were summoned as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. along with the present petitioner, were also not challenged before the higher forum. This clearly indicates a selective approach on the part of the prosecution, suggesting that the present Opp. Party has been singled out and subjected to proceedings with mala- fide and politically motivated intent. (vi) He further contends that the order granting bail was passed by the learned Sessions Court on 24.05.2023, whereas the present challenge has been instituted only in April, 2025 which is after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly two years, with almost three years having been elapsed till date. Such belated invocation of jurisdiction, in the absence of any cogent justification, disentitles the Petitioner from seeking interference with a well-reasoned order that has, over time, attained a degree of finality. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT: 5. The Learned Trial Court made the following observations: (i) The learned trial court approached the issue on the settled premise that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction, to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the same time, it recognised that such power may be invoked Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 9 where the evidence adduced during trial, if left unrebutted, discloses the involvement of a person not already arrayed as an accused. (ii) The impugned order demonstrates a conscious application of mind to the statutory framework under Section 319 CrPC and stands reinforced by reliance on authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, which delineate the scope, limitations, and preconditions for the exercise of such power. (iii) The learned Court, upon a meticulous scrutiny of the testimonies of the principal prosecution witnesses, recorded a categorical finding that the names of Gayadhar Parida, Jyotiranjan Panda and Dasarathi Das not only find place in the First Information Report but also emerge consistently and with specificity in both the examination-in-chief and cross- examination of the material witnesses. It has further been observed that such witnesses have attributed to the said persons definite and distinct roles, including their participation in prior meetings, issuance of threats to the deceased, involvement in pre-occurrence planning, and their presence in the vicinity of the scene of occurrence on the relevant date. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, prima facie disclose their involvement so as to justify their arraignment under Section 319 Crocethia (iv) learned trial court appears to have assessed the matter on the cumulative strength of the evidence tendered by PW-7, PW-8, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 10 PW-11, PW-18 and PW-25, and found the same to be sufficient for the limited purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC. Significantly, the court did not rest its satisfaction on mere suspicion or on materials gathered during investigation in isolation, but rather, it reached to its conclusion on the basis of substantive evidence that had surfaced before the court in the course of trial, thereby adhering to the settled legal requirement that the power under Section 319 CrPC must be based on evidence adduced in court. The order also addressed the objection that the proposed accused had not been charge- sheeted by the police. In doing so, the court relied on the settled principle that a person named in the FIR but omitted from the charge sheet can nonetheless be summoned under Section 319 CrPC if evidence recorded during trial reveals involvement in the offence. (v) The learned court further took note of the stage of the proceeding and acknowledged that the prosecution evidence had already been closed. Even so, it held that this did not bar the exercise of power under Section 319, since the statute itself contemplates that once such power is exercised, proceedings against the newly added accused must commence afresh and the witnesses must be reheard. (vi) The reasoning of the order shows that the trial court was conscious both of the seriousness of invoking Section 319 CrPC and of the consequence that a fresh trial would follow against Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 11 the newly added accused. On that basis, it allowed the application and directed splitting up of the record, issuance of summons, filing of witness lists and simultaneous disposal of both matters. V. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 7. The present proceeding is directed against the order dated 24.05.2023 by which opposite party no. 2, who had earlier been summoned to face trial under Section 319 of the CrPC in S.T. Case No. 138 of 2012A, was enlarged on bail. The order dated 27.06.2022 summoning him under Section 319 is not the immediate subject matter of challenge in this proceeding. Even so, the strength and character of the material on the basis of which he came to be arrayed as an accused furnish the necessary backdrop for examining the legality of the subsequent order granting bail. 8. In a proceeding of this nature, the High Court does not sit as a regular court of appeal over every order granting bail. At the same time, a bail order can be interdicted where it is unjustified, perverse, arbitrary, or founded on non-application of mind to material considerations. The distinction between cancellation of bail on account of later conduct and setting aside an order of bail which is itself legally infirm has long been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Neeru Yadav v. State Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 12 of Uttar Pradesh5. The relevant excerpts of the judgment are produced below: “..It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court.” 9. The abovementioned precedent makes it clear that even a brief order granting bail in a grave offence must disclose intelligible reasons. In the present case, the Petitioner does not merely assail the cancellation of bail simplicter, but also calls in question the legality, propriety, and regularity of the impugned order. However, the principal issue which arises for consideration is that the Petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay of almost two years, and as on date, nearly three years have lapsed since the passing of the impugned order. Such prolonged and unexplained delay in invoking the jurisdiction of the Court is certainly a relevant circumstance, which 5 2001 6 SCC 338 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 13 reflects upon the conduct of the Petitioner and raises serious doubt as to the bona fides and diligence in prosecuting the present challenge. 10. The Supreme Court in Md. Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. State of Jharkhand,6, wherein it has been held that: “14. When a person is added as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that person is ultimately arrested and prays for bail, the relevant consideration at the end of the court while conserving his plea for bail should be the strong and cogent evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charges, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction. The Court weigh factors like the nature of the offence, the quality of the evidence against the new accused and the likelihood of the person absconding or tampering with the evidence. In other words, the Court must be satisfied that there is strong and cogent evidence of the person’s complicity at the threshold i.e. much higher that that required for framing charges against the original accused. 15. the other two co-accused namely MD Samsher and MD Arshad respectively are already on anticipatory bail since 02.07.2025. we are informed that they have been appearing before the trial court on all dates. 16. Since the matter is at large before the trial court, we need observe anything further. 17. It is ordered that MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu shall be released on bail subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit on impose. 18. so far as the other two accused are concerned, they are already on anticipatory bail. No case is made out by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail. 6 2026 SCC Online 31 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 14 19. in the result, the appeal filed by MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu stands allowed and the appeal filed. By the State of Jharkhand stands dismissed.” 11. In this case, the Opp. Party No.2 was enlarged on bail pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court. The learned Trial Court, while exercising its judicial discretion, duly considered the surrounding circumstances, including the fact that all the co-accused persons, who were originally arraigned in the same crime, had already been released on bail. Taking into account the parity of consideration and the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court was pleased to extend the benefit of bail in favour of the present Opp. Party. 12. Thus, this Court finds that there is no perversity or unwarranted consideration, nor any omission of material facts, so as to warrant interference with the just and proper exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Court. This court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in exercise of its supervisory or appellate jurisdiction. 13. The materials collected during the course of investigation, when taken at their face value, disclose a prima facie case warranting adjudication of trial. The allegations levelled against the Petitioner cannot be said to be so inherently improbable, absurd, or devoid of substance so as to justify interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Section 528 BNSS. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 22-Apr-2026 16:18:49 Signature Not Verified Page 15 VI. CONCLUSION: 14. In view of the foregoing analysis, and upon a careful appraisal of the material facts and attendant circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations, even if accepted at their face value, do not disclose any ground warranting cancellation of bail. The contentions advanced by the Petitioner essentially traverse into the realm of defence, which cannot be examined in the limited jurisdiction exercised under Section 482 of the CrPC / Section 528 of the BNSS. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/ Section 528 of BNSS. 16. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 17th April, 2026/ CUTTACK