Rashmi@Rashmi Ranjan Bhol Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rashmi@Rashmi Ranjan Bhol Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision disposed of: learned District & Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar directed to freshly consider the petitioner's Section 47 BNSS application (Annexure-2) in T.R. Case No. 344 of 2025 and pass a reasoned order as per law, preferably within seven days from receipt of a copy of this order; impugned order dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure-3) set aside.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned court below acted improperly in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 47 BNSS (Annexure-2) seeking release without taking that application into account or referring to it, warranting intervention in revision.

Ratio / Principle

On a bare reading of Annexure-2, the Court found that the application under Section 47 BNSS (i.e. Annexure-2) was not taken into account while passing the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure-3).

Key takeaways

The learned court below was directed to freshly consider Annexure-2 by an order according to law and within a stipulated period.ratio¶19
The revision petition stood disposed of with the said direction to be complied with by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in connection with T.R. Case No. 344 of 2025.ratio¶21
Compliance was to be followed by a reasoned order as per law, preferably within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — CRLREV No.707 of 2025 (order dated 16.10.2025; R.K. Pattanaik, J.). Revision by Rashmi @ Rashmi Ranjan Bhol against order dated 25.08.2025 of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 344 of 2025, whereby his application under Section 47 BNSS (Annexure-2) seeking release — pressed on the claim that the ground of arrest was not informed to him — was rejected. On a bare reading of Annexure-2, the Court found the application had not been taken into account while passing the impugned order, the bail plea having been rejected without referring to Annexure-2. The learned court below was directed to freshly consider Annexure-2 by an order according to law, to be followed by a reasoned order preferably within seven days from receipt of a copy of the order; as a necessary corollary, the impugned order (Annexure-3) was set aside and the revision petition stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.707 of 2025

Rashmi @ Rashmi Ranjan Bhol …. Petitioner

Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate

-Versus-

State Of Odisha

…. Opposite Party

Mr. P.K.Sahoo, ASC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

16.10.2025

Heard Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 25^th August, 2025 passed in T.R. Case No. 344 of 2025 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, whereby, an application under Section 47 BNSS at Annexure-2 seeking release on the grounds stated moved by him has been rejected.

Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application as per Annexure-2 was pressed into service demanding release of the petitioner with the claim that the ground of arrest was not informed to him and it was followed by the impugned order vide Annexure-3.

Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

Page 1 of 2

On a bare reading of Annexure-2, the Court finds that the application under Section 47 BNSS i.e. Annexure-2 has not been taken into account while passing the impugned order dated 25^th August, 2025 at Annexure-3. The bail plea of the petitioner has been rejected instead without referring to Annexure-2. In such view of the matter, the Court is of the view that the learned court below should be directed to freshly consider Annexure-2 by a order according to law and within a stipulated period

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in connection with T.R. Case No. 344 of 2025 followed by a reasoned order as per law preferably within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a necessary corollary, the impugned order Annexure-3 is hereby set aside.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

Kabita

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Oct-2025 19:40:28

Page 2 of 2