Biswa Raj Sahu @ Biswa Vs State of Odisha

This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Balangir Sadar PS Case No. 351 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No. 1449 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Balangir for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.115(2)/ 117(2)/ 118(2)/ 109(1)/ 76/ 190/ 103(1)/191(3) of BNS, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Debarchan Bagarty and injuring Kasualya Bagarti, Jishu Bagarty, Suratha Bagarti and Chalu Bagarti by assaulting them with deadly weapons, along with co-accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object.

¶17

In the course of hearing, Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits by referring to the FIR lodged by wife of the Petitioner

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

No.9 and injury sustained by him that the case is an outcome of civil dispute, but injured party was the aggressor and they had assaulted the Petitioners. Further, Mr. Mishra also submits that Petitioners No.2 and 3 are octogenarian and there is hardly any truth in alleging against them to have assaulted the deceased person and in a situation like this, there is every chance of false implication. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Mishra prays to grant bail to the Petitioners.

¶20

3.1. On the other hand, Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, learned counsel for the informant, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the Petitioners by contending inter-alia that the Petitioners and others had assaulted the deceased and injured persons and thereby, the Petitioners having participated in the crime should not be enlarged on bail.

¶21

3.2. More or less is the submission advanced by Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP who emphatically submits by taking this Court through the injury report of the injured person and PM report of the deceased that the act of the Petitioners have in fact killed one person and injured number of persons and, therefore, it would not be proper to grant bail to the Petitioners.

¶22

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears case and counter case and the members of both the party have allegedly sustained some injuries, but the informant group has lost one person namely Debarchan Bagarty who died during his treatment. Besides, the materials on record

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

indicate that the Petitioner No.2 is 76 years, whereas Petitioner No.3 is 70 years and there appears allegation against both the parties for assault and counter assault, but the Petitioners are in custody for some time and in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted. In a case of this nature who was the aggressor and who was the retaliator can be ascertained in the trial, but not in the course of adjudication of the bail application. Further, law is well settled that detail analysis of evidence on merit should be avoided at the stage of consideration of bail.

¶25

In view of the above facts and circumstance and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioners vis-a-vis the accusations sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the death of one person namely Debarchan Bagarty and injuries to four to five persons and keeping in view the age of the Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety and there being no materials collected to suggest that the Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 either would abscond or would become threat to the witnesses in the event of their enlargement on bail, this Court while being inclined to grant bail to the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 Ghanashyam Sahu & Abhela Sahu, considers it improper to grant bail to the rest of the petitioners at this stage.

¶26

Hence, the bail application of petitioners Biswa Raj Sahu @ Biswa, Daktar Sahu, Tuna Sahu, Page 3 of 4

¶27

Chittaranjan Sahu @ Banchha, Asadhu Sahu, Nilambara Naik @ Nila, Bhala Sahu stand rejected, whereas the bail application of the petitioners Ghanashyam Sahu & Abhela Sahu stand allowed and they are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it.

¶28

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e- mail for reference.

¶29

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶30

Priyajit

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 05-May-2026 15:57:34

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Biswa Raj Sahu @ Biswa v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswa Raj Sahu @ Biswa 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

Kankan Joddar Vs State of Odisha

Sukumar Ray Vs State of Odisha

Ajaya Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sakil @ Sakila Marndi Vs State of Odisha

Mangal Bankira Vs State of Odisha

Kanha Swain Vs State of Odisha