Pankaj Kumar Paswan vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

These are bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Ainthapali P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 141/45 of 2025 & S.T. Case No. 247/65 of 2025 (G.R. Case No. 14 of 2025) pending in the file of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 310(2)/62(2) of BNS, r/w. Sec.25(1)(a)/27 of Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing dacoity in Mannapuram Finance Ltd. Budharaja Branch, Sambalpur and taking away 27.52 Kgs of gold ornaments along with cash of Rs.4,81,382/- on the point of gun.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos. 13044 & 13347 of 2025 by referring to certain documents filed by him submits that although there are scar marks on the face of the petitioner-Pankaj Kumar Paswan, but no similar person has been associated at the time of conducting TI parade of the petitioner-Pankaj Kumar Paswan and thereby, the alleged identification of the petitioner Pankaj Kumar Paswan in TI parade bears no meaning or significance and although the petitioners being innocent persons, but they are confined in custody. He also submits that the petitioner-Yash Anand @ Rishu has no role in commission of the crime and he is not identified in TI parade, but out of the criminal antecedents shown against him, he has been discharged in two cases and the petitioner's criminal proclivity should not be taken into account and, therefore, the petitioner's custody period being primary consideration, there would not be any impediment to grant bail to the petitioner-Yash Anand @ Rishu. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Panda prays to grant bail to the petitioners-Pankaj Kumar Paswan and Yash Anand @ Rishu.

2.1. Mr. Biraja Prasad Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing virtually for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 13232 of 2025 submits that the allegation against the petitioner-Anuj Kumar Shaw @ Papu @ Akash being not found out on materials on record, his detention in custody is unwarranted and, therefore, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.

2.2. On the other hand, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP by referring to the identification of the petitioner-Pankaj Kumar Paswan and the allegation sought to be brought against rest of the petitioners, submits that not only the petitioner-Pankaj Kumar Paswan has been identified in TI parade, but also there is prima facie involvement of all the petitioners in this case and the petitioner-Anuj Kumar Shaw @ Papu @ Akash and petitioner- Yash Anand @ Rishu having been involved in other criminal cases, their bail applications may kindly be rejected.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against unknown persons in the FIR for committing dacoity in the Office of Mannapuram Finance Ltd. Budharaja Branch, Sambalpur and robbing away approximately property worth Rs.11.5 Crores (27.52 Kgs of gold ornaments along with cash of Rs.4,81,382/-) on the point of gun, but the petitioner-Pankaj Kumar Paswan has been allegedly identified in the TI parade, however, such identification has been seriously challenged by the petitioner for not being associating similar type of persons, but such challenge cannot be adjudicated in a bail application, since detailed analysis of evidence and meticulous examination of documents on merit is not permissible at the stage of consideration of bail. Further, the materials placed on record disclose allegation against the petitioner- Yash Anand @ Rishu for receiving Rs.3.5Crores in connection with this case and against the petitioner-Anuj Kumar Shaw @ Papu @ Akash for receiving all looted gold articles.

It is, however, not disputed, rather stated in the bail application of the petitioner-Yash Anand @ Rishu that he is having seven criminal cases, but the details thereof, such as offences or allegations and status of the cases have not been given. It is only stated in the paragraph-10 of his bail application that the petitioner-Yash Anand @ Rishu has following previous criminal antecedents:-

(i) 0095/2025 Police station- Lodhi Special Cell P.S.

(ii) Dharhara P.S. Case No. 137/2020

(iii) Gandhi maidan P.S. Case No. 449/2017

(iv) Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 350/2016

(v) Patrakar nagar P.S. Case No. 352/2016

(vi) Buddha colony P.S. Case No.310/2017

(vii) Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 377/2016

Besides, the petitioner-Anuj Kumar Shaw @ Papu @ Akash has not disclosed his criminal antecedents in his bail application, but the learned State Counsel has inter alia provided the antecedents of the petitioner-Anuj Kumar Shaw @ Papu @ Akash Singh in following cases, which is material suppression:-

(1) Rangnath Nagar P.S. Case No. 336/22 U/S.395/120-B/420/467/468/471 IPC/ 25/27 Arms Act;

(2) Maharastra MIDC Lathur P.S. Case No. 730 Dt.29.09.2023 U/S.399/402/120- B/420/485/ 487 IPC/ 3/25(1)/7/27 Arms Act;

(3) Madhya Pradesh, Katni P.S. Case No. 336 dt.26.11.2022 U/S. 395 IPC and

(4) Rajasthan, Rajsamand Kankroli Police Station Case No. 287/2023 dt. 30.10.2023 U/S. 450/342/384/397/34 IPC / 3/25 Arms Act.

On the context of suppression of criminal antecedents, this Court considers it proper to refer to the decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph-9 has inter alia held as under :-

"9. 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." Xxxx xxx xx xx.

Additionally, in a very recent decision in Zeba Khan Vrs. State of UP and others; 2026 SCC OnLine 188, the Apex Court at paragraphs-42, 43, 47 & 48 has been pleased to hold as under:-

"42. It has been consistently emphasized by this Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion.

Any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice.

In the present case, Respondent No. 2 deliberately concealed his criminal antecedents before the High Court, both in the petition for quashing FIR as well as in successive bail applications. Even before this Court, only partial disclosure was made in the counter-affidavit, despite the existence of multiple criminal cases on record. This conduct cannot be viewed as an isolated lapse but reflects a growing and disturbing trend of accused persons securing discretionary relief by suppressing material facts.

As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail applications are examined at multiple stages - from the trial Court to the High Court and ultimately this Court - where courts are often constrained to take a prima facie view on incomplete or selectively presented records. Non-disclosure of material aspects such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, duration of custody, compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the progress of trial may result in the unwarranted grant of bail, or conversely, the prolonged incarceration of accused persons despite substantial custody having already been undergone.

Thus, this Court is of the view that every petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any stage of proceedings, is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and the existence of any coercive processes such as issuance of non-bailable warrants, declaration as a proclaimed offender, or similar proceedings, duly supported by an affidavit, so as to promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail adjudication."

In the sequence of events and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the materials placed on record together with the suppression of criminal antecedent by the petitioner-Anuj Kumar Shaw @ Papu @ Akash and the petitioner- Yash Anand @ Rishu having not disclosed the details of his criminal antecedents and keeping in view the alleged identification of the petitioner-Pankaj Kumar Paswan in the TI parade and last but not the least, further taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners.

Hence, these three bail applications of the petitioners namely Pankaj Kumar Paswan (BLAPL No. 13044 of 2025); Anuj Kumar Shaw (BLAPL No. 13232 of 2025) and Yash Anand @ Rishu (BLAPL No. 13347 of 2025) stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately transmitted to the Court in seisin over the matter for reference.