p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1661 of 2026 Shankar Luhar ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Routray, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha .….... Opposite Party Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 23.04.2026 Order No. 01. F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 266 10.12.2025 Jonk S.T. Case No.02 of 2026, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Nuapada 143(3)/318(2) of BNS and Section 25 of ISMW (RE & CS) Act. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in Jonk P.S. Case No.266 of 2025, corresponding to S.T. Case No.02 of 2026, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nuapada, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Apr-2026 12:29:50 Signature Not Verified p. 2 143(3)/318(2) of BNS and Section 25 of ISMW (RE & CS) Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case, as per the FIR lodged by the informant, is that on 10.12.2025 at about 7:00 AM, while on day patrolling duty, police received reliable information about illegal transportation of labourers near Jalaram Chowk, Khariar Road. Acting on this, they reached the spot at around 7:30 AM and intercepted a Bolero vehicle coming from Beltukuri carrying migrant labourers. Upon checking, 5 male, 5 female persons, 2 children and the driver were found in the vehicle. During inquiry, they stated that, on the Petitioner’s direction, driver Surender Kumar Sahu was transporting them to Uttar Pradesh for financial gain and for engagement in hazardous work, leading to possible exploitation. Verification revealed that the Petitioner had no valid documents such as identity records, labour movement order, or transport license. Hence, the case was registered. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations against the Petitioner are false, fabricated and made with mala fide intent to harass him. The Petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the statement of the alleged victim, without any independent or corroborative evidence. Page 3 of 5 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that on a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose any prima facie case against the Petitioner and his implication appears arbitrary. The Petitioner was neither present at the place of occurrence nor in the vehicle at the relevant time and no material exists to establish his involvement. Even as per the prosecution case, the Petitioner was not found at the spot, while the driver of the vehicle transporting the labourers has not been made an accused, raising serious doubts about the case. The petitioner is innocent and has no connection with the alleged offence. The labourers had voluntarily agreed to travel outside the State for employment. 7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail as the FIR and material collected show that the Petitioner was involved in illegal transportation of migrant labourers, including women and children, without valid documents. Victims’ statements indicate that the transport was being done at his instance for exploitation. The absence of the Petitioner at the spot is not relevant as his role is of organizer/beneficiary. The investigation is ongoing and there is a clear apprehension of witness influence. In view of the gravity of the offence, bail deserves to be rejected. Page 4 of 5 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the nature of accusation, stage of investigation and the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner should be granted bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case. However, such release shall be conditioned upon stringent terms and conditions, as the learned Court deems fit and just. The conditions are as follows:- i. The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; ii. The Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; iii. The Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission; iv. The Petitioner shall furnish his current address and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and shall not change the same without prior intimation; p. 5 v. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not hamper the same in any manner. 9. Any violation of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this Order as per Rules. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun