Allowed

Shantiraj Nag @ Rahul v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026BLAPL/7760/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa granted bail to the petitioner accused of dacoity under BNS Section 309(4). Bail was allowed subject to the condition that it would not materialize if the petitioner was identified in a Trial Identification (TI) parade or had criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail on furnishing bonds of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions regarding TI parade and criminal antecedents.

Shantiraj Nag @ Rahul Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.7760 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010422552026

¶2

Shantiraj Nag …

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Orissa

¶7

… Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP

¶9

Order No.

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL)10.09.2026

¶11

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

¶12

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Malkangiri PS Case No.280 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.349(A) of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Malkangiri for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 309(4) of BNS, on the main allegation of committing dacoity by snatching away the bag of the informant containing 1Kg 200Grams of gold and cash of Rs.2Lakhs.

¶13

Heard, Mr. Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. On being queried about the criminal antecedent and identification of the petitioner in TI parade, Mr. Mishra, volunteers to withhold bail to the petitioner, if he is found to have been identified in TI parade or any criminal antecedent is found against him.

¶14

After having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the pre trial detention of the petitioner in custody since 10.04.2026 with submission of charge sheet in the meantime and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety including the inherent right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and the grant of bail to co-accused persons K. Murali (BLAPL No.12753 of 2025); K. Suman Kumar Achary (BLAPL No.12966 of 2025); S. Venketesh (BLAPL No.13256 of 2025); A. Srinibas Achary (in BLAPL No.13336 of 2025); Raju Nayak (BLAPL No.617 of 2026); Bharat Nayak (BLAPL No.1161 of 2026); and Abhinash Maharana @ Abinash @ Akash (BLAPL No.2750 of 2026) and keeping in view recovery of 120grams of gold from co-accused S. Biswa and taking into account the mode and manner of implication of the present petitioner in this case together with the claim of the petitioner for not having been identified in TI parade or not having any criminal antecedent, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to verification of his identification in TI parade, if any or having any criminal antecedents.

¶17

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is 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

Page 2 of 3

¶19

In view of the specific submission as advanced for the petitioner, the benefit of this order shall not be extended to the petitioner, if he is found to have been identified in TI parade or any criminal antecedents is found against him. 6. 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.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Jayakrushna

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2026 19:59:42

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Shantiraj Nag @ Rahul v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantiraj Nag @ Rahul 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