Raju Dandia Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Raju Dandia Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Each appellant admitted to bail by making the interim bail absolute; impugned order dated 10.12.2024 set aside; appellants to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper by the learned Court seisin over the matter.

Issue for consideration

Whether appellants Raju Dandia & Another, refused bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhawanipatna, should be admitted to bail through this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Act, which is in the nature of bail.

Ratio / Principle

In deciding to grant bail the Court took into account the circumstances on record in entirety, including the inherent right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial; the recorded circumstances comprise absence of any reported misuse of interim bail liberty, the simple injury to Bhakta Mahanada and one grievous among three injuries to Tirtha Mahananda, submission of charge sheet after completion of investigation, and the appellants' pre-trial detention in custody.

Key takeaways

Without expressing any opinion on merit, the Court considered it proper to admit each of the appellants to bail by making the interim bail absolute.ratio¶18
The Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside; consequently the appellants are to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper by the learned Court seisin over the matter.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLA No.69 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, oral order dated 05.02.2026 (coram: Justice G. Satapathy). Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016, in the nature of bail, filed by Raju Dandia & Another (counsel: Jnyanananda Panda) against the State of Odisha & Another (Addl. PP S.C. Pradhan), directed against the order dated 10.12.2024 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.43 of 2024 (Spl. Act) arising out of Madanpur Rampur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2024 refusing bail; appellants charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 296/115(2)/118(1)/117(2)/109/351(3)/3(5) of BNS r/w Sec.3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v) of the Act, on the main allegation of attempting the life of injured Bhakta Mahananda and Tirtha Mahananda by assaulting them with lethal weapons. Interim bail had been granted by this Court on 15.04.2025 because the learned State Counsel could not inform the victim in terms of Section 15-A (5) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 despite opportunity; no misuse of liberty was reported; injury to Bhakta Mahanada was simple while one of three injuries to Tirtha Mahananda was grievous and two simple; investigation concluded with submission of charge sheet; none appeared for the victim despite intimation. Considering rival submissions, nature and gravity of offences vis-a-vis the accusations, pre-trial detention, submitted charge sheet and the accused's inherent right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial, the Court, without expressing any opinion on merit, admitted each appellant to bail by making interim bail absolute, allowed the Criminal Appeal and set aside the impugned order, directing release on terms fixed by the learned Court seisin over the matter. No precedent case is cited; no quantum is involved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.69 of 2025

Raju Dandia & Another … Appellants

Mr. J. Panda, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Another

… Respondents Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

Order No. 04.

ORDER(ORAL) 05.02.2026

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

This criminal appeal Under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016 (in short, “the Act”) in nature of bail is directed against the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhawanipatna, in C.T. Case No.43 of 2024 (Spl. Act) arising out of Madanpur Rampur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2024 refusing to grant bail to the appellants being charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 296/ 115(2)/ 118(1)/117(2)/109/351(3)/3(5) of BNS, r/w. Sec.3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v) of the Act, on the main allegation of attempting to the life of the injured Bhakta Mahananda and Tirtha Mahananda by assaulting them with lethal weapons.

Page 1 of 3

Heard, Mr. Jnyanananda Panda, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. None appears for the victim despite being duly intimated as apprised by learned Addl. PP.

This Court by way of an order passed on 15.04.2025 has granted interim bail to the appellants in this criminal appeal on the ground of the learned State Counsel being unable to inform the victim in terms of the statutory provision of Section 15-A (5) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 despite availing opportunity, but no report of misuse of liberty by the appellants has been received by this Court. Besides, the injury sustained by the injured Bhakta Mahanada appears to be simple in nature, whereas out of the three injuries sustained by the injured Tirtha Mahananda, one is grievous in nature and rest two are simple in nature. In the meantime, after completion of investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted.

In that view of the matter and after having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the appellants vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the pre-trial detention of the

Page 2 of 3

appellants in custody 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, this Court without expressing any opinion on merit, considers it proper to admit each of the appellants to bail by making the interim bail absolute.

Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellants be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deems fit and proper by the learned Court seisin over the matter.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

S.Sasmal

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Feb-2026 10:44:11

Page 3 of 3