Allowed

Ghasiram Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2026CRLA/191/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act concerning grave offences under the BNS, the Orissa High Court considered the gravity of the crime, the likelihood of absconding, and the right to presumption of innocence. The Court admitted the appellants to bail without cash surety.

What did the court decide?

Appellants admitted to bail; impugned order set aside; release directed on conditions excluding cash surety.

Ghasiram Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA NO.191 of 2026 CNR NO. ODHC010106082026

¶2

(In the matter of an appeal U/S.14-A(2) of SC & ST (PoA) Act).

¶3

Ghasiram Sahu & others … Appellants -versus- State of Orissa and another … Respondents For Appellants : Mr. M.Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. C.Mohanty, Addl. PP

¶4

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶5

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:09.09.2026(ORAL)

¶6

G. Satapathy, J.

¶7

1. This Criminal Appeal in the nature of bail U/S.14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016 (in short, “the Act”) is directed against the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 passed in Special GR Case No.02 of 2026 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Sonepur, has refused to grant bail to the appellants in connection with Dunguripali PS Case No.20 of 2026, for commission of offences U/Ss.296/ 115(2)/ 351(2)/

¶8

CRLA No.191 of 2026 Page 1 of 4

¶9

109/118(2)/74/3(5) of the BNS r/w. Section 3(1)(r)/ 3(1)(s)/3(2)(v) of the Act, on the main allegation of attempting to the life of the injured Swantantra Bahuk, Sujata Bahuk, Bidesh Bahuk and Barsarani Pande @ Bahuk belonging to SC category by attacking them with deadly weapons, along with co-accused persons by taking advantage of their caste.

¶10

2. Heard, Mr. Mahadev Sahu, learned

¶11

counsel appearing virtually for the appellants and Mr. C.Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. None appears for the informant/victim despite being duly intimated as apprised by learned Addl. PP.

¶12

3. After having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the appellants vis-a-vis the accusations sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the pretrial detention of the appellants in custody since 07.01.2026 with submission of charge sheet in the meantime and keeping in view the other circumstance

¶13

CRLA No.191 of 2026 Page 2 of 4

¶14

on record in entirety including the inherent right of the accused-appellants to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and the nature & number of injuries sustained by the injured and lastly, no material being placed on record to suggest that the appellants would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if released on bail, this Court without expressing any view on the merits, considers it proper to admit the appellants to bail.

¶15

4. Hence, the CRLA stands allowed and the impugned order is, hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellants are directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions except cash surety as deem fit and proper by the learned Court in seisin over the matter with following conditions:-

¶16

(i) the appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activities,

¶17

(ii) the appellants shall not induce, influence or coerce any of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court &

¶18

(iii) the appellants shall not contact the injured persons and their family members.

¶19

CRLA No.191 of 2026 Page 3 of 4

¶20

5. Issue urgent certified copy of the order

¶21

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.

¶22

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶23

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9^th day of September, 2026/Kishore

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Sep-2026 19:11:56

¶26

CRLA No.191 of 2026 Page 4 of 4

Ghasiram Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghasiram Sahu 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