Partly allowed

Rukmani Pani @ Rukmani Pani Kandhapani Rani Priti v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2026CRLA/583/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed an application for condonation of 129-day delay in filing a bail appeal under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The Court partly allowed the bail appeal for the female appellant, setting aside the refusal of bail for her while declining bail for the male co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay was allowed. Bail was granted to the female appellant (Rukmani Pani) with bonds of Rs. 25,000/-; bail for the male appellant was refused.

Rukmani Pani @ Rukmani Pani Kandhapani Rani Priti Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA NO.583 of 2026 CNR NO.ODHC010400052026

¶2

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

¶3

Rukmani Pani @ Rukmani … Appellants Pani Kandhapani Rani Priti and another

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha … Respondent For Appellants : Mr. B.P. Nanda, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:09.09.2026(ORAL)

¶7

G. Satapathy, J.

¶8

IA No.1724 of 2026

¶9

1. This is an application U/S.5 of the Limitation

¶10

Act by the appellants for condonation of delay of 129 days in preferring the appeal.

¶11

2. Heard, Mr. Biraja Prasanna Nanda, learned

¶12

counsel appearing virtually for the appellants and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in

¶13

the matter and perused the record. None appears for

¶14

CRLA No.583 of 2026 Page 1 of 5

¶15

the informant/victim despite being duly intimated as apprised by learned Addl. PP.

¶16

3. For the reasons stated therein in the IA, the prayer for condonation of delay stands allowed and, accordingly, the delay of 129 days in preferring the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Hence, the IA No.1724 of 2026 stands disposed of.

¶17

CRLA No.583 of 2026

¶18

4. 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 14.11.2025 passed in TR Case No.133 of 2025 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Koraput, has refused to grant bail to the appellants in connection with Nandapur PS Case No.99 of 2025, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.140(1)/103(1)/238(b)/ 61(2)(a)/3(5) of BNS r/w Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, on the main allegation of abducting of the deceased

¶19

CRLA No.583 of 2026 Page 2 of 5

¶20

belonging

¶21

Somnath Jani belonging to “SC” category and committing his murder, along with co-accused persons and disposing the dead body by entering into conspiracy with each other.

¶22

5. Heard, Mr. Biraja Prasanna Nanda, learned counsel appearing virtually for the appellants and Mr. T.K. Acharya, 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.

¶23

6. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the appellant No.2-Jitru @ Jitu Gouda for abducting the deceased and committing his murder as well as disposing the dead body, whereas the allegation against the appellant No.1-Rukmani Pani @ Rukmani Pani Kandhapani Rani Priti is for entering into conspiracy by calling the deceased to a place and there appears no allegation against the appellant No.1 for either participating in abduction of the deceased or

¶24

CRLA No.583 of 2026 Page 3 of 5

¶25

killing him. The appellants are in custody since 06.08.2025, but in the meantime, some witnesses have already been examined. Further, the appellant No.1 is a lady and she is thereby entitled to the proviso appended to Section 480 of BNSS. In the aforesaid premises and on consideration of materials placed on record, this Court while not being inclined to grant bail to appellant No.2-Jitru @ Jitu Gouda, considers it proper to admit the appellant No.1-Rukmani Pani @ Rukmani Pani Kandhapani Rani Priti to bail.

¶26

7. Hence, the CRLA stands allowed in part and the impugned order is, hereby, set aside to the extent of refusal of bail to appellant No.1. Consequently, the appellant No.1-Rukmani Pani @ Rukmani Pani Kandhapani Rani Priti is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) 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

¶27

cash surety as deem fit and proper by it.

¶28

CRLA No.583 of 2026 Page 4 of 5

¶29

Needless to say, it is open for the appellant

¶30

No.2-Jitru @ Jitu Gouda to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court under the changed circumstance of examination of some of the witnesses.

¶31

8. 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.

¶32

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶33

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

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Sep-2026 19:36:55

¶36

CRLA No.583 of 2026 Page 5 of 5

Rukmani Pani @ Rukmani Pani Kandhapani Rani Priti v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmani Pani @ Rukmani Pani Kandhapani Rani Priti 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