Allowed

Chintu @ Ashish Das @ Ashis Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2026BLAPL/6927/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, heard two bail applications arising from the same case record. After reviewing rival submissions and noting the co-accused had already been granted bail, the Court admitted the petitioners to bail without expressing views on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications allowed; petitioners admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- each with one solvent surety.

Chintu @ Ashish Das @ Ashis Das Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

Chintu @ Ashish Das @ Asish Das (In BLAPL No.6927 of 2026) CNR No. ODHC010472232026 Kaliprasad Roul (In BLAPL No.8883 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010663722026

¶3

… Petitioners

¶4

Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate (in BLAPL No.6927 of 2026) Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate (in BLAPL No.8883 of 2026)

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Order No.

¶7

State of Orissa

¶8

… Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 09.09.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Khurda Model PS Case No.284 of 2026 corresponding to GR Case No.632 of 2026 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Khordha for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.304/317(4)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of dealing with snatching gold chain.

¶13

Heard, Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6927 of 2026; Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.8883 of 2026 and

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matters and perused the record.

¶16

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears only recovery of Rs.3,00,000/from the petitioners and another person, but the primary allegation is against co-accused persons for snatching gold chain from the neck of the informant and selling the same. The petitioners are in custody since 04.06.2026, but in the meantime charge-sheet should have been submitted, however, co-accused Niranjana Sahoo (BLAPL No.6474 of 2026); Santosh Kumar Sahoo (BLAPL NO.6429 of 2026); Raka @ Gudul Behera (BLAPL No.6686 of 2026) and Jaydev Pal (BLAPL No.6729 of 2026) have already been granted bail by this Court. In the aforesaid premises and on consideration of the materials placed on record, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits each of the petitioners to bail.

¶17

Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners stand allowed and the petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) only 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 except cash surety as deem fit and proper by it.

¶18

Accordingly, the BLAPLs stands disposed of.

¶19

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the Signature Not Verifiedconcerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASHthe concerned Jail through e-mail for reference. Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Sep-2026 19:40:00

¶20

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶21

Jayakrushna

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Chintu @ Ashish Das @ Ashis Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintu @ Ashish Das @ Ashis Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases