Dismissed¶25

Chitrasen Parida v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 May 2026BLAPL/1879/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BLAPL No.1879 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (G. Satapathy J.), order dated 07.05.2026: bail under S.483 BNSS refused to Chitrasen Parida in Kodala PS Case No. 80(06) of 2012 / GR Case No.202 of 2012(B) (JMFC Kodala), offences under Ss.147/148/294/323/324/307/302/506/120(B)/149 IPC and Ss.25(1-B)(a)/27 Arms Act (2012 fatal attack on Santosh Pandi). Grounds: abscondance for more than 13 years (surrender 27.01.2026; shown as absconder in charge sheet); four criminal antecedents including two S.302 IPC cases and one S.395 IPC; parity with bailed co-accused held not a sole ground; merits premature as petitioner yet to face trial. Bail application rejected; BLAPL disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Parity with co-accused persons who have already been granted bail cannot be the sole ground to grant bail to the petitioner in a case of this nature.

Chitrasen Parida Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS in connection with Kodala PS Case No. 80(06) of 2012 / GR Case No.202 of 2012(B) for offences including murder, rioting and Arms Act violations.

¶14

Court's answer

Parity with co-accused persons who have already been granted bail cannot be the sole ground to grant bail to the petitioner in a case of this nature.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's criminal antecedents (four cases apart from this one, including two under Section 302 IPC and one under Section 395 IPC) cannot be considered lightly, since he is involved in three serious and heinous offences.

¶21

Key takeaways

It is too early to comment on the merit of the case because the petitioner has not yet faced the trial and no witness has been examined qua him, the trial having been delayed by his own conduct in avoiding the process of law.ratio¶21
Considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, the accusations against the petitioner, his abscondance for more than 13 years and his criminal antecedents for serious and heinous offences, the Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS by Chitrasen Parida, accused in Kodala PS Case No. 80(06) of 2012 corresponding to GR Case No.202 of 2012(B) pending before the learned JMFC, Kodala, for offences punishable under Sections 147/148/294/323/324/307/302/506/120(B)/149 IPC read with Sections 25(1-B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, alleging that the petitioner and others, armed with deadly weapons including firearms, formed an unlawful assembly, attacked Hatia Pandi, Manoj Pandi and Santosh Pandi, causing the death of Santosh Pandi. Bail rejected. The FIR was registered on 09.06.2012, but the petitioner surrendered in Court only on 27.01.2026, having avoided the process of law for around more than 13 years, and was shown as an absconder in the charge sheet. He had four criminal antecedents apart from this case, including two under Section 302 IPC and one under Section 395 IPC. The Court held that parity with co-accused already granted bail cannot be the sole ground for bail in a case of this nature; that such criminal antecedents for serious and heinous offences cannot be considered lightly; and that it was too early to comment on the merits since the petitioner had not yet faced trial and no witness had been examined, the trial having been delayed by his own conduct. Taking into account the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the long abscondance and the antecedents, the Court declined bail at this stage and disposed of the BLAPL.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1879 2026

¶2

Chitrasen Parida

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr.N.P.Rath, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Orissa

¶7

… Opposite Party Mr. C.Mohanty, Addl. PP

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶10

Order No.

¶11

01.

¶12

ORDER(ORAL) 07.05.2026

¶13

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶14

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Kodala PS Case No. 80(06) of 2012 corresponding to GR Case No.202 of 2012(B) pending in the file of learned JMFC, Kodala for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 147/148/294/323/324/307/302/506/120(B)/149 of IPC read with Sec. 25(1-B)(a)/27 of Arms Act.

¶15

The allegation against the petitioner is that he and others being armed with deadly weapons including firearms committed rioting by forming unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, attacked Hatia Pandi, Manoj Pandi & Santosh Pandi by assaulting and firing causing death to Santosh Pandi and injury to others.

¶16

In the course of hearing, Narendra Parasad Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

although four criminal antecedents has been shown against the petitioner including two for commission of offence U/S. 302 of IPC, but those cases have been registered on a single day at the same time and that too, against a mob, however, number of co-accused persons in this case have already been granted bail, but the petitioner is languishing in custody. Mr.Rath further submits that the Doctor has already been examined, but his deposition does not disclose any firearm injury to the deceased, however, it is alleged against the petitioner for firing at the deceased and, therefore, there is no iota of truth in the allegation of the informant who is already dead by now and 12 out of 22 charge sheeted witnesses having already been examined in this case and two more witnesses having already been reported to be dead, the further detention of the petitioner in custody may not be considered relevant. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Rath prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶19

4.1. On the other hand, Mr.C.Mohanty, learned Addl. PP by referring to the statement of the informant submits that not only the petitioner and others had attacked the deceased by firing at them, but also they had attacked the deceased and injured by means of sword and the petitioner having avoided the process of law for more than 13 years is not entitled to be released on bail even on parity. On the aforesaid

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

submission, Mr.C.Mohanty prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner and others for attacking the deceased and committing his murder, but the evidence of witnesses as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not the witnesses examined in the present case in which the petitioner is yet to face trial, however, it is not disputed that the petitioner is having four criminal antecedents, apart from this case including two cases for commission of offence U/S. 302 of IPC and one U/S. 395 of IPC. Besides, the FIR in this case was registered on 09.06.2012, but the present petitioner has surrendered in the Court on 27.01.2026 and charge sheet has been filed in this case by showing the present petitioner as absconder. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner has avoided the process of law for around more than 13 years. Parity certainly cannot be the sole ground to grant bail to the petitioner in a case of this nature, but the criminal antecedents as reported against the petitioner cannot be considered lightly since the petitioner is involved in three serious and heinous offences. Further, it is too early to comment on the merit of the case because the petitioner has not yet faced the trial nor any witness has been examined and the trial qua the accused is

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

delayed due to conduct of the petitioner in avoiding the process of law.

¶24

In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-a-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the long abscondance of the petitioner for more than 13 years and there being criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner for serious and heinous offences, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶25

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court.

¶26

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶27

kishore

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-May-2026 10:12:07

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Chitrasen Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitrasen Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Litu @ Bharat Behera Vs State of Odisha

Lalbahadur Singh Vs State of Odisha

Kuhur Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Rajkumar Meher Vs State of Odisha

Anil Yadav Vs State of Odisha

Rajkishore Jena Vs State of Odisha