p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10237 of 2025 Binod Chaudhary … Petitioner Mr. G.S. Srivastava, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa & Another … Opposite Parties Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 05.01.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. On being prayed, the names of Mr. Raghunath Biswal, Amit Biswal, Satyabrata Sahoo, Raj Kumar Moharana, A. Pandia, S. Samanta and S.K. Mohanty be deleted from the cause list as well as brief. 3. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Airport PS Case No.274 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.1488 of 2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC (Cog. Taking- V), Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.319/318(4)/336(2)/338/336(3)/340(2)/339 of BNS r/w Sec.12 of Passport Act, on the main allegation of possessing two passports in different names. 4. In the course of hearing Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma, learned counsel submits that he is a local counsel and Mr. Ganesh Shankar Srivastava is the counsel who will argue in the matter. Accordingly, a copy of the Vakalatnama is produced. However, Mr. Sharma p. 2 argues and submits before this Court that there is blatant violation of guidelines of Arnesh Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar & another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, which is not only done by the trial Court, but by this Court also. At this stage, Mr. Ganesh Shankar Srivastava took over the argument and submits that he will argue in the matter. Accordingly, Mr. Srivastava submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with life or death or beyond seven years and, therefore, the petitioner having detained in custody may kindly be granted bail. On the other hand, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP submits that since the petitioner has obtained pass-port in two different names and he is thereby, prima facie liable for the offences alleged against him and the petitioner having similar criminal antecedents, his bail application may kindly be rejected. 5. After having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against the petitioner and regard being had to the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody with submission of charge-sheet in the meantime and taking into account the other circumstances on record including the inherent right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC 51, this p. 3 Court without expressing any view on merit admits the petitioner to bail. 6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law. Before parting, this Court, is constrained to express displeasure for the submission made by Mr. Anand Kumar Sharma alleging against this Court for violating the guidelines of the Arnesh Kumar (supra) without any substance, but since he has expressed remorse and undertaken to file a written apology in this case, no further action is recommended against Mr.Sharma, who is, however, advised not to repeat the same casting aspersion to the Court without any substance in future. 7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna