Disposed¶26

Khirendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Criminal law – Anticipatory bail

Orissa HC12 Nov 2025ABLAPL/6306/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; pre-arrest bail; ABLAPL No.6306 of 2025; Khirendra Kumar Sahoo; Sections 316/318 BNS; G.R. Case No.143 of 2025; Salepur P.S. Case No.147 of 2025; J.M.F.C. Salepur; contract dispute; mens rea; surrender within three weeks; conditional bail; criminal antecedent verification; cooperation with investigation; Orissa High Court; Justice V. Narasingh; 12.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Conditional pre-arrest bail: Petitioner to surrender within three weeks and move for bail, whereupon he shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin, subject to verification of criminal antecedents; the order shall not be given effect if any criminal antecedent is found; Petitioner to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. ¶26

Khirendra Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail in connection with G.R. Case No.143 of 2025 arising out of Salepur P.S. Case No.147 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 316/318 BNS.

¶17

Court's answer

On surrendering within three weeks and moving for bail, the Petitioner shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin, subject to verification of criminal antecedents.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If the Petitioner is found to have any criminal antecedent, the bail order shall not be given effect to.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Petitioner shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal law — Anticipatory bail — ABLAPL No.6306 of 2025 filed by Khirendra Kumar Sahoo seeking pre-arrest bail in G.R. Case No.143 of 2025 (arising out of Salepur P.S. Case No.147 of 2025) for offences punishable under Sections 316/318 BNS, pending before learned J.M.F.C., Salepur — Petitioner's counsel submitted the dispute was an offshoot of a contract and the FIR ought not to have been instituted; Informant's counsel and the State contended mens rea was tell tale from inception and the bogey of civil law could not be pressed into service — Court, taking into account the nature of allegation and the agreement on record, directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioner be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin, subject to verification of criminal antecedents — If any criminal antecedent comes to fore, the order shall not be given effect to — Petitioner to cooperate with the ongoing investigation — ABLAPL stands disposed of (V. Narasingh, J.; order dated 12.11.2025).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.6306 of 2025

¶3

Khirendra Kumar Sahoo

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & another

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate (Informant)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

12.11.2025

Order No.

03.

Mr. Rath, learned counsel has entered

¶15

appearance on behalf of the Informant by filing Vakalatanama in Court. The same is taken on record.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.

¶17

The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.143 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Salepur, arising out of Salepur P.S. Case No.147 of 2025 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 316/318 BNS.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel that essentially the dispute is an offshoot of the contract and for violation of the same, the FIR ought not to have

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

Signature Not Verifiedbeen instituted. Hence, he may be protected by pre-

¶21

Signature Not Verifiedbeen instituted. Hence, he may be protected by preDigitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAINarrest bail. Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 13-Nov-2025 11:30:165. L earned counsel for the Informant submits that admittedly after taking money the Petitioner had never any intention to honour the commitment. As such, mens rea is tell tale from the very inception. Hence the bogey of the civil law cannot be pressed into service. And, the Petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State echoes such submission.

¶23

Taking into account the nature of allegation and the agreement on record, it is directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioner shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed subject to verification of criminal antecedent of any nature.

¶24

If it comes to fore that the Petitioner has any criminal antecedent, this order shall not be given effect to.

¶25

It is needless to state that the Petitioner shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

¶26

Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.

¶27

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶28

PKS

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Khirendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khirendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basanta Kumar Singh Vs President-Cum-Appellate Authority,Khurda

Tushar Lenka Vs State of Odisha

Ramya Ranjan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Anil Kumar Jal Vs State of Odisha

Babuli Bhujabala @ Krushna Chandra Bhujabal Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Kumar Giri Vs State of Odisha