Dismissed¶18

Kishore Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Nov 2025ABLAPL/8399/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ABLAPL No. 8399 of 2025; Kishore Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Odisha; Orissa High Court at Cuttack; Justice V. Narasingh; anticipatory/pre-arrest bail rejected; BNS Sections 296, 305(a), 331(4), 351(3); Basudevpur P.S. Case No.71 of 2025; C.T. Case No.201 of 2025; Section 138 N.I. Act pending litigation; contractual agreement contention; surrender within one month; first-hour bail consideration; higher forum second hour same day; ground of parity; criminal antecedents verification; witness Mukti.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail refused; protective directions issued - surrender within one month, first-hour merits consideration by the court in seisin, second-hour same-day recourse to the higher forum with endeavour at same-day disposal, case diary to be made available, and parity/antecedents to be examined by the courts below.

Kishore Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.201 of 2025 (arising out of Basudevpur P.S. Case No.71 of 2025) for offences under Sections 296/305(a)/331(4)/351(3) of BNS.

¶14

Court's answer

Having perused the materials on record including the statement of one of the witnesses (Mukti), the Court was not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail and rejected it.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner was directed that he may surrender before the learned Court in seisin within one month; upon surrender and motion for bail, the court in seisin is to consider the bail prayer on merits in the first hour of the day.

¶18

Key takeaways

If the court in seisin rejects the bail prayer, the Petitioner is at liberty to move the higher forum in the second hour on the same day; the higher forum is requested to endeavour same-day disposal, the case diary is to be made available to the concerned courts and transmitted to the higher forum in the event of rejection.ratio¶20
Ground of parity, if any, and verification of the Petitioner's criminal antecedents of a similar nature were left to the learned court(s)/forums below.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - rejection. Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in C.T. Case No.201 of 2025, arising out of Basudevpur P.S. Case No.71 of 2025, for offences punishable under Sections 296/305(a)/331(4)/351(3) of BNS, contending (through counsel) that the FIR was an off-shoot of a contractual agreement and that pending Section 138 N.I. Act litigations between the parties coloured the allegations, so custodial interrogation was unwarranted; the State and the informant opposed. Perusing the materials on record including the statement of witness Mukti, the Court declined to entertain the application and rejected it, but directed that the Petitioner may surrender within one month, that the court in seisin consider his bail prayer on merits in the first hour of the day, and that, upon rejection, he may move the higher forum in the second hour the same day, with an endeavour at same-day disposal, availability of the case diary, and parity and criminal antecedents to be examined by the courts below.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No. 8399 of 2025

¶3

Kishore Kumar Mohapatra

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K.Panda, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC Mr.S.Mohapatra, Advocate (Informant)

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

11.11.2025

Order No.

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

¶14

The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.201 of 2025 pending on the file of learned Court in sesin, arising out of Basudebpur P.S. Case No.71 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 296/ 305(a)/ 331(4)/ 351(3) of BNS.

¶15

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that this is an off-shoot of contractual agreement between the parties and hence, the FIR

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

ought not to have been registered in the first case. It is also submitted that there are pending litigations inter se between the parties under Section 138 of N.I. Act and that in the said background, the allegation in the F.I.R. is to be viewed and considering the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is not warranted.

¶18

Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State as well as informant. 5. This Court perused the martials on record including the statement of one of the witnesses, Mukti. Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application for pre-arrest bail and the same accordingly stands rejected. However, it is directed that the Petitioner may surrender before the learned Court in sesin in connection with the aforementioned case within one month from today.

¶19

In the event of his surrender and motion for bail, the same be considered by the learned Court in sesin on merits, in the first hour of the day.

¶20

In the event of rejection of the prayer for bail by the learned Court in sesin, the Petitioner is at liberty to move the higher forum for bail in the second hour on the same day.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

On being so moved, the higher forum is requested to make an endeavor to dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day.

¶23

The case diary shall be made available to the concerned courts to facilitate disposal of the bail application of the Petitioners and learned Court in sesin is called upon to transmit the case record to the higher forum at the earliest in the event of rejection of such bail application.

¶24

Ground of parity, if any, may be considered by the learned court(s) below. The forums below are requested to verify the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner of similar nature.

¶25