Raj Dalabehera Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026

¶2

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of BNSS).

¶3

Raj Dalabehera (In BLAPL No.733 of 2026) Geda Balia @ Balaram Routray (In BLAPL No. 2704 of 2026)

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate (In BLAPL No.733 of 2026) Mr. K.C. Sarangi, Advocate (In BLAPL No.2704 of 2026)

¶7

For Opposite Party : Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶10

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:07.04.2026(ORAL)

¶11

G. Satapathy, J.

¶12

1. 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.

¶13

2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with ST Case No. 24 of 2024 arising out of Khurda Model PS Case

¶14

Page 1 of 7 BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026

¶15

No. 351 of 2023 pending in the file of learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 294/302/307/506/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Somanath Bhujabala @ Paku by firing at him from pistols, along with co-accused persons after hatching a criminal conspiracy.

¶16

3. Heard Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.733 of 2026; Mr. Kedar Chandra Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.2704 of 2026 and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP in these two matters and perused the record together with copy of depositions of PWs.1-21 as supplied.

¶17

4. After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for committing murder of the deceased by firing at him, along with co-accused persons after hatching a criminal conspiracy, but bail is mainly sought for to the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera for witnesses so far

¶18

Page 2 of 7 BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026

¶19

examined not taking his name in their evidence, however, the bail application of the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera was earlier rejected by this Court in BLAPL No.2937 of 2024 for having serious criminal antecedents which was never denied by the petitioner as stated by him in paragraph no.5 of his bail application. It is, however, not in dispute that the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera is allegedly having 18 criminal antecedents, but he has not disclosed the details of his criminal antecedents in his bail application, which is a material suppression. In this regard this Court is fortified with the decision in Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan; 2025 INSC 871 , wherein the Apex Court has held the following in paragraphs-22 and 23: -

¶20

“22. Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as below:

¶21

“ 5. Bail applications . - In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme

¶22

Page 3 of 7 BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026

¶23

Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.”

¶24

23. We feel that every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a similar provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered.”

¶25

5. Further, the petitioner-Raj Dalabehera is

¶26

implicated in this case with the aid of Sec.120(B) of IPC, but such allegation can be appreciated after examination of all the material witnesses, however, only 21 chargesheeted witnesses have been examined till today and there are other material witnesses yet to be examined. The criminal antecedents as shown against the petitioner for 18 criminal cases is not a simple thing and cannot be brushed aside in view of the decision of the Apex Court in

¶27

Ash Mohammad Vrs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu

¶28

Page 4 of 7 BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026

¶29

and another; (2012) 9 SCC 446, wherein at

¶30

paragraph-30 it has been held as under: -

¶31

“ 30 . We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents . Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire . The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused.

¶32

5.1. In Neeru Yadav vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh

¶33

& another; (2014) 16 SCC 508, the Apex Court in

¶34

Paragraph-17 has held as follows:-

¶35

“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the 2nd

¶36

Page 5 of 7

¶37

BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026

¶38

respondent was a history-sheeter , it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinize every aspect and not capriciously record that the 2nd respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order clearly exposes the nonapplication of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the 2nd respondent has been charge sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences . The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.”

¶39

6. On a careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record, it is not disputed that the deceased Somnath Bhujabala @ Pakku had been shot at and he subsequently died while being undergoing treatment and the autopsy conducting doctor has found Puncture lacerated wound on the abdominal cavity of the deceased and he further opined that extra injury no.II is consistent with entry wound of fire arm projectile. Besides, the name of the petitioner-Geda Balia @ Balaram Routray has been uttered by the witnesses in their evidence; nevertheless he was allegedly identified by PW.15 in the TI parade. In

¶40

Page 6 of 7 BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026

¶41

view of the aforesaid facts together with the rulings of the Apex Court as referred to above and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the materials placed on record and taking into account the evidence of witnesses so far examined, more particularly that of PW.15 and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan; (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3539 , this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners.

¶42

7. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners stand rejected. Accordingly, BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court for compliance.

¶43

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Apr-2026 14:14:22 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 07^th day of April, 2026/Jayakrushna

¶46

Page 7 of 7 BLAPL Nos.733 & 2704 of 2026

Raj Dalabehera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Dalabehera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikram Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Ajit Baskey @ Ajit @ Chakara Baskey Vs State of Odisha

Bharat Rao Vs State of Odisha

Gulu Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Das Vs State of Odisha

Deebakar Manahira @ Dibakar Manhira Vs State of Odisha