BLAPL No.2507 of 2026 Page 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.2507 of 2026 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). Pramod Majhi … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:14.07.2026(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Lephripada PS Case No.82 of 2023 corresponding to ST Case No.237/13 of 2023-24 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, for being charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.396/397/201/120-B of IPC r/w Sections 25(1)(a)/27(3) of Arms Act. 1.1. The facts as revolved round the present bail application are that the deceased Pravat Naik BLAPL No.2507 of 2026 Page 2 of 6 along with the informant Panchanan Perua and his son were proceeding towards Handipani by one Motorcycle on 13.04.2023 in the morning, but unfortunately on the way in between Chattenpali and Suruguda Tarini Temple, three unknown persons being armed with pistols came on a Motorcycle and obstructed them by covering their faces and kicked the Motorcycle of the informant and when the deceased Pravat Naik was trying to flee away from the spot with the money bag containing Rs.9 Lakhs, the second pillion rider of the motor cycle of the assailants shoot the deceased Pravat Naik from his pistol and took away the money bag from him and the deceased was taken to the hospital only to be declared dead. On this fact, an FIR was lodged by Panchanan Perua resulting in commencement of investigation, in the course of which finding complicity of the petitioner and others, they were taken into custody, but subsequently, when the bail application of the petitioner was rejected, he approached this Court in this bail application. BLAPL No.2507 of 2026 Page 3 of 6 2. Heard, Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 3. Mr. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity and witnesses not supporting the prosecution allegation, but it appears from the impugned order that 20 out of 21 charge-sheeted witnesses have already examined in the meantime and the case is awaiting for disposal and there is every likelihood of disposal of the case in near future. The allegation against the petitioner is not only serious, but also grave, however, the petitioner is having some criminal antecedents, but he has not disclosed such criminal antecedents in his bail application. In the context of suppression of criminal antecedent, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2025 SCC OnLine SC BLAPL No.2507 of 2026 Page 4 of 6 1319, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-9 has held as under:- “9. Xxx xxx xxx, since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. Xxx xxx xxx”. 4. Additionally, this Court has already amended the Rules to incorporate the following after Rule-5(2)(a) of Chapter-XVIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, which reads as under:- “(b) In every application for bail presented to the High Court, the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made, shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof to be furnished. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the appropriate bench with the necessary information.” 5. In view of the aforesaid provision and law, although it is mandatory to indicate the criminal antecedent by a bail applicant, but in this case, the petitioner has in fact not disclosed his criminal BLAPL No.2507 of 2026 Page 5 of 6 antecedent, which has been supplied by the learned State Counsel and the same is reflected in the table as under:- Sl. No. Police Station PS Case No. Date Offence 1 Lephripada 82/23 13.04.2023 U/s.394/302/34 of IPC R/w Sec. 25/27 Arms Act turned to Sec. 396/ 397/120-B/201 IPC R/w Sec. 25/27 Arms Act. 2 Rajgangpur 159/10 09.08.2010 U/s.294/323/341/452/ 506/147/148/149 IPC. 3 Rajgangpur 66/17 01.03.2017 U/s.395/120-B IPC 25 Arms Act. 4 Rajgangpur 304/21 20.10.2021 U/s.399/402 IPC 25 Arms Act. 5 Rajgangpur 314/21 05.05.21 U/s.394 IPC 6 Rajgangpur 169/21 01.06.2021 U/s.392/34 IPC. 7 Rajgangpur 267/21 22.08.21 U/s.399/402 IPC R/w Sec. 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act. 8 Govindpur 67/19 16.05.19 U/s.392/397/34 IPC 25/27 Arms Act. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record and last but not the least, taking into account the BLAPL No.2507 of 2026 Page 6 of 6 alleged suppression of criminal antecedent by the petitioner and trial being at its fag end, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 14th day of July, 2026/Subhasmita Designation: Sr. Stenographer