Niranjan Rout vs State Of Odisha Vs

G. Satapathy, J.

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016 (in short, “the Act”) in nature of bail is directed against the order dated 14.05.2025 passed in CT(Special) Case No.525 of 2025 by which the learned Special Judge, Chandikhole has refused to release the appellant on bail in connection with Jenapur PS Case No. 111 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2)/ 296/ 115(2)/ 303(2)/ 308(2)/351(2)/3(5) of BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Act, on the main allegation of demanding money from the informant and assaulting him along with co-accused persons by taking advantage of the caste of the informant.

Heard, Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Pravat Kumar Muduli, learned counsel for the Informant in the matter and perused the record. The informant and the State mainly oppose the bail application of the appellant for violation of the condition no. (III) of the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ABLAPL No. 3744 of 2025 and his subsequently involvement in other criminal cases.

2.1. In addressing the rival submissions, when a question is posed to Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP, he candidly replies that except the complainant, the other witnesses so far examined has not supported the allegation against the appellant. Further, the statement of the complainant does not reveal any injury to him.

2.2. In opposing the prayer of the appellant, Mr. Muduli, learned counsel for the Informant, however, by placing reliance to the decision in State of Haryana Vrs. Dharamraj; AIR Online 2023 SC 887 submits that while considering a bail application, the Court has to apply its mind to the character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused, but since the appellant herein is involved in other cases and he having violated the condition of the order passed in ABLAPL No. 3744 of 2025, he should not be granted bail. It is, however, not in dispute that that the appellant is having some political background and he is being implicated in some cases, however, in the present case, except the complainant, some of the witnesses have not supported the allegation and the informant has not sustained any kind of injuries, although there is allegation against the appellant for assaulting the informant. Besides, the appellant is in custody since 14.05.2025. True it is that, there is allegation against the appellant for violating the condition stated supra, but the condition as imposed only states that the appellant shall not involve himself in similar or any type of offence during currency of the order, however, the appellant was involved or not in similar type of offence or any other offence can only be ascertained after he faces the trial in this case or if there appears some prima facie accusations to presume that the accused got himself involved in other cases, the Court can evaluate the violation of condition by the accused, but merely because some cases have been registered against the accused, it cannot be said that the accused has violated the condition, otherwise the person who are inimically disposed of or aggrieved by the person accused of offence, can also manage to register case(s) which need(s) to be investigated.

Further, the classic right an accused has got is his presumption of innocence and such right can be effectuated by granting bail to a person accused of offence by taking some surety, unless the allegation is heinous, serious and the materials on record prima facie disclose the involvement of the accused in such cases. It is also not in dispute that bail is the rule, but jail is the exception and a person cannot be put behind bar for indefinite period, merely because case(s) has/have been registered against him, of course a person can be taken into custody in accordance with the procedure established by law. In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials placed on record, this Court without expressing any view on merits considers it proper to admit the appellant to bail.

Hence, the CRLA stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed/set aside. Consequently, the appellant be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by the learned Court in seisin over the matter.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

.…………………………………..