p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.6807 of 2025 Trinath Behera …. Petitioner Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC Mr. S. K. Dash, Special Counsel ABLAPL No.7562 of 2025 Pravakar Behera …. Petitioner Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC And ABLAPL No.957 of 2026 Titu Behera …. Petitioner Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING:16.04.2026 DATE OF ORDER:23.04.2026 1. All the ABLAPLs are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by the following common order. p. 2 2. Instant bail petitions under Section 482 BNSS are filed seeking pre-arrest bail of the petitioners in connection with Purusottampur P.S. Case No.240 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.238 of 2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC, Purusottampur on the grounds stated. 3. Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1. A case under Section 103(1) BNS has been registered. In fact, upon lodging of a report by the informant, namely, Susanta Kumar Mahapatra, Purusottampur P.S. Case No.240 dated 29th March, 2025 has been registered under Section 103 (1) and 3(5) BNS. 4. According to the prosecution story as revealed from the FIR, the informant and his deceased brother, namely, Sumanta Mahapatra had gone to their native village to look after a work on 28th March, 2025 and on the said date, both had been to purchase medicine and on their way back, the accused persons named therein and others combinedly assaulted the deceased. It has been alleged in the report that the accused persons assaulted the victim by means of sword and after causing severe injuries to him, fled away from the spot and the alleged incident took place in presence of the informant. But after the deceased was shifted to the hospital in an ambulance and finally to the MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur, he was declared dead. It has been alleged further that the accused persons assaulted the informant’s brother and the reason behind the dispute between them on account of a litigation between both sides. On such a report lodged and registration of Purusottampur P.S. Case No.240 dated 29th p. 3 March, 2025, for the alleged offences committed by the accused persons punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3 (5) BNS, the investigation was commenced. 5. Heard Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the informant. 6. Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely accused of having committed the murder of the deceased and therefore, all of them should be granted protection by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS. It is submitted that there is a discrepancy, especially with regard to the time recorded in the formal FIR. According to Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, the time of alleged incident has not been mentioned in the FIR lodged by the informant. As per the formal FIR, the information was received at the P.S at 8.15 A.M. but there is a discrepancy in the formal FIR as to the time when such report was received. Furthermore, Mr. Katikia, learned counsel would submit that the presence of the petitioners at the spot is not established, inasmuch as, their involvement is alleged in the FIR and therefore, they apprehend arrest in the hands of the local police. For the animosity between the parties, it is contended by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel that a false case has been registered by the informant. It is alleged that the I.O. concerned is biased and he has been in connivance with the informant in falsely framing the petitioners and while claiming so, the copies of the FIRs lodged earlier from the side of the informant are referred. It is claimed p. 4 that one of the cases is registered the concerned I.O. arrested one of the accused persons though he was not named in the FIR. Under the above circumstances, it is contended by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel that the petitioners need protection from arrest otherwise they would be prejudiced as their personal liberty may be curtailed with the arrests taken place in connection with Purusottampur P.S. Case No.240 dated 29th March, 2025. In support of the contention advanced regarding enmity, arrest of the petitioners with a false narrative in the FIR by the informant so on and so forth, Mr. Katikia, learned counsel relies on the following decisions such as Lalita Kumari Vrs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 2 SCC 1 and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vrs. State of Gujarat and another (2016) 1 SCC 152 wherein the Apex Court highlighted upon the principles to be considered at the time of granting pre-arrest bail. 7. On the contrary, Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State would submit that the report has been lodged by the informant for the death of the deceased brother alleging therein about the involvement of the petitioners and therefore, a prima facie case is made out. Further, referring to the statements of a witness, namely, Susanta Behera recorded during investigation, it is submitted that there is material on record to suggest that the petitioners are involved in the death of the deceased, a copy of the statement of the said witness recorded under Section 183 BNSS is made available to the Court, referring to which, Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC would further submit that the p. 5 petitioners are directly involved in the death and deceased, hence, are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The case diary is produced and it is finally contended that the plea of pre- arrest bail by the petitioners is liable to be rejected in view of the evidence on record. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the informant would submit that the petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased and it is clearly revealed from the materials on record and not only that, the witnesses proved the alleged incident and their presence at the spot and hence, no case is made out for pre-arrest bail. 8. Admittedly, there is a dispute between both the sides, for which, multiple FIRs have been lodged. The copies of the FIRs lodged against the petitioners are produced by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel to submit that on account of such animosity between the parties, the report has been lodged by the informant. It is claimed that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioners were present at the spot and in particular, the accused, namely, Trinath Behera and therefore, it is a fit case where anticipatory bail should be granted to all. Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State submits that the enmity between the parties is the reason behind the alleged incident and in view of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, the involvement of the petitioners is prima facie established. 9. In so far as, any such discrepancy in the FIR as to the time recorded in the formal FIR, the Court is of the view that it would not be just and proper to attach too much of importance to the same especially when the investigation is p. 6 in progress and all the more when, such a question can be examined and debated upon during trial. Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the time of the alleged incident is not mentioned in the FIR and the formal FIR, the information about the same is said to have been received at 8.15 A.M. but it has been stated to have been received at 8.30 A.M according to the P.S., hence, a doubt shall have to be entertained about the credibility of such information, but as earlier stated the Court is not inclined to hold that such can be a ground to consider and accept the plea of the petitioners that all of them have been falsely roped in. According to the Court, it is not the stage to consider any such question laying too much of emphasis regarding the time when the information was received. Nonetheless, on the one hand, it is recorded that the information was received at 8.15 AM recorded in the formal FIR as 8.30 AM. It is not that there is a huge time gap in the information received about the alleged incident. It may be said that any such discrepancy is not substantially to affect or damage the genuineness of the case and the FIR in particular. Of course, such a question could be raised by the petitioners during trial. But on any such ground to allege that there is a false FIR lodged for the discrepancy in the time of receiving the information and so recorded in the formal FIR as contended by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court is not inclined to accept the same while considering the plea of pre-arrest bail demanded by them. Page 7 of 10 10. In Lalita Kumari (supra), the Apex Court emphasized the scope of preliminary inquiry where the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, it has been held therein that on lodging of the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence, a case shall have to be registered as a general rule but at the same time, preliminary inquiry is permissible. It is observed therein that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence and in that case, no preliminary inquiry is permissible however where it does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether any such cognizable offence is disclosed or not, but in the considered view of the Court, the decision (supra) is of no assistance to Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, as therein, the issue involved and for consideration was whether a police officer is bound to register an FIR upon receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or the police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same. 11. In so far as, the principles for the grant of anticipatory bail are concerned, it has been summed up by the Apex Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra). 12. Considering the decisions as above and submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties, the Court is to consider whether a prima facie case is made out for granting pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioners. The p. 8 Court finds that the parties are in litigation and number of criminal cases have been registered between them. It prima facie shows existence of enmity between both the sides. Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to such animosity, a false FIR has been lodged. According to the Court, it would be too premature to claim that there is a false FIR lodged by the informant on account of any such enmity between the parties. Law is well settled that enmity is a double-edged weapon for which there may be a genuine case registered or even a false one. At times, enmity is a reason for an incident to happen. In so far as, the petitioners are concerned, as earlier stated, they had been in litigating terms with the informant. It is revealed from the record itself that there have been multiple FIRs lodged against the petitioners and vice versa. As to the death of the deceased, who was the brother of the informant, the Court finds that the witness, namely, Susanta Behera examined under Section 183 BNSS revealed the names of the accused persons including the petitioner in ABLAPL No.6807 of 2025 whose presence at the spot is questioned. While under examination before the police under Section 180 BNSS, the said witness revealed the name of another petitioner in ABLAPL No.957 of 2026. It has been alleged by the above named witness that the named accused persons and others armed with sword assaulted the deceased. The manner in which the assault was carried out has been described by the said witness. For the injuries received by the deceased, he succumbed and as per the PM report, the death is on account of haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries received by him and p. 9 complications thereof. It is a case of ante mortem injuries and homicidal in nature and as per the PM report, the injuries to have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon with an opinion therein that all the injuries in combination and the external injuries described therein independently can cause death in ordinary course of nature. The assault and the injuries have been by means of a sharp cutting weapon. The enmity between the parties is admitted. The witnesses, namely, Ramchandra Lenka and Balaram Behera have also deposed about the involvement of the petitioners including the accused, namely, Trinath Behera. It has been alleged that the informant and the deceased were on their way on motorcycle and at that time, one Manoj Behera and Sanjaya Behera intercepted them, held the bike from behind and thereafter, the above named accused and others armed with swords assaulted the deceased. In view of the evidence received during investigation, according to the Court, the involvement of the petitioners cannot be ruled out. 13. Being alive to the settled legal position discussed herein before, this Court is of the view that no case for pre- arrest bail is made out on any such ground as has been advanced at present. In other words, there is material on record to suggest that the deceased had a homicidal death and it was on account of the involvement of the accused persons named in the FIR and since such involvement is suggested from the materials on record, the Court is inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State and also Mr. Dash, learned counsel for p. 10 the informant that it is not a case for pre-arrest bail of petitioners. 14. As to the materials placed on record from the side of the petitioners claiming connivance of the IO, the Court is of the humble view that it is totally misconceived. There is no real reason to believe any such connivance of the IO as he has had no axe to grind against the petitioners. The arrest of any of the petitioners in a case by the IO for reasons known to him even when he was not named is a part of the investigative process and cannot be alleged or branded as an act of connivance unless specific material is submitted with instances described, which is conspicuously absent in the case at hand. Furthermore, the discrepancy if any as alleged by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel is too trivial a ground to take judicial notice of at least at this stage to make the Court believe that the allegations in the FIR are falsely motivated only to implicate the petitioners. Hence, for the reasons stated as above, the Court is not inclined to entertain the plea of pre-arrest bail of the petitioners. 15. Accordingly, it is ordered. 16. Consequently, the ABLAPLs stand dismissed. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer