AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Puri Town PS Case No.116 of 2025 corresponding to ST Case No.131/803 of 2025/ST Case No.528 of 2025 (GR Case No.298(A) of 2025) pending in the file of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.109(1)/ 115(2)/118(2)/126(2)/296/351(3)/3(5) of BNS r/w Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, on the main allegation of attempting to the life of injured Nrusingha Samartha @ Kanha by assaulting him with two swords, along with co-accused persons.
In the course of hearing, Mr. Tara Prasad Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.4594 of 2026 submits that even if the prosecution allegations are taken into consideration, no overt act having been attributed to the petitioner for assaulting the injured and he having detained in custody for substantial period, he may kindly be granted bail.
Mr. Kaustuva Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.4672 of 2026 also submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, but subsequently he was implicated in this case on the statement of injured, but he is in custody since 28.03.2025 and, thereby, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.
On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by highlighting the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and non-disclosure of criminal antecedents by the petitioner-Pintuna Behera prays to reject the bail applications of the petitioners.
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for assaulting the injured Nrusingha Samartha @ Kanha, but the injury report of the said injured reveals eleven grievous injuries on his person. Besides, the petitioner-Pintuna Behera has not disclosed his criminal antecedents in his bail application, but he is allegedly found to be implicated in eight criminal cases. No doubt, the petitioner-Abhi Behera has disclosed his criminal antecedents by way of a comprehensive affidavit, but initially he has not disclosed his criminal antecedent in his bail application, which amounts to suppression of material facts. In the context of suppression of material facts, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-9 has held as under:-
“9.Xxx xxx xxx, since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. Xxx xxx xxx”.
Right now, three witnesses have already been examined, but the injured is yet to be examined. In the aforesaid situation and taking into account the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners at this stage, especially when the injured is yet to be examined.
Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Abhi Behera (In BLAPL No.4594 of 2026) and Pintuna Behera (In BLAPL No.4672 of 2026) stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court for reference.