Allowed

Ajaya Digal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026BLAPL/7435/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of an application by Ajaya Digal as withdrawn. In the remaining case, the Court granted bail to petitioner Sunil Nayak under Section 483 of BNSS for an offence under Section 309(6) of BNS, considering pre-trial detention, lack of antecedents, and the nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner Sunil Nayak is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount.

Ajaya Digal Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 7435 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010527262026

¶2

Ajaya Digal and another

¶3

… Petitioners Mr. M. Das, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha

¶6

… Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP

¶7

Order No.

¶8

01.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 10.09.2026

¶10

Mr. Mahes Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners by filing a memo seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the bail application for the Petitioner Ajaya Digal by praying to grant liberty to the said Petitioner to move afresh before the learned trial Court later. Accordingly, the present bail application qua the Petitioner Ajaya Digal stands disposed of as withdrawn and it is only confined to the petitioner namely Sunil Nayak. 2. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner- Sunil Nayak for grant of bail in connection with Balliguda PS Case No.151 of 2026 corresponding to CT Case No. 257 of 2026 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Balliguda for commission of offence punishable Under Section 309(6) of BNS, on the main allegation of snatching away a sum of Rs. 6,000/and mobile phone from the informant.

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

Heard, Mr. Mahes Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

¶13

After having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner vis-avis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody since 18.06.2026 with submission of charge sheet in the meantime and there being no criminal antecedent reported against the Petitioner and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety including the inherent right of the accused-Petitioner to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and trial being not likely to commence in near future and lastly, no materials being placed on record to suggest that the Petitioner would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if released on bail, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits the PetitionerSunil Nayak to bail.

¶14

Hence, the bail application of the petitionerSunil Nayak stands allowed and he is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions except cash surety as deem fit and proper by it.

¶17

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.

¶18

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶19

Priyajit

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 10-Sep-2026 19:59:13

¶22

Page 3 of 3

Ajaya Digal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaya Digal 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