AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
Since these three 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 Markatnagar PS Case No.182 of 2026 corresponding to GR Case No.654 of 2026 pending in the file of learned JMFC-I (Cog. Taking), Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/223 of BNS r/w Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 11(1) of Odisha Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.
The allegation against the petitioners in gist is that the petitioner-Abhisek Rout while appearing in the competitive exam of Odisha Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2025 was found by the invigilator Rabi Narayan Tripathy for using a concealed Bluetooth ear-bud connected with mobile phone for indulging in unfair practice in the exam and, accordingly, the Centre Supervisor of the Examination Centre, Ajay Binay Institute of Technology (ABIT), Cuttack lodged an FIR, which was registered against the petitioner-Abhisek Rout vide Markatnagar PS Case No.182 of 2026, but in the course of investigation, the involvement of other petitioners was unearthed and they were in fact providing unauthorized assistance to the petitioner-Abhisek Rout through electronic devices for becoming successful in the exam. In the course of investigation, all the petitioners were taken into custody, but right now, they are before this Court after remaining unsuccessful in securing their liberty before the learned concerned Sessions Judge, however, in the meantime, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/61(2) of BNS r/w Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act and Sections 11(1)/12 of Odisha Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.
Heard, Mr. Atul Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.6392 & 6711 of 2026; Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.7307 of 2026 and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, no doubt there appears allegation against the petitioners for practicing unfair practices to get advantage in the examination in conspiracy with each other, but the petitioners have been forwarded to the Court on 07.06.2026 and since then, they are in custody, but in the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted, however, on verification of criminal antecedents of all the petitioners, nothing adverse was found against each of them. Further, all the offences are triable by the Magistrate and do not prescribe punishment beyond seven years. It cannot be denied that the accusation/allegation cannot be accepted at its face to punish an accused prior to the trial, since the allegation is subject to proof in the trial and this is the precise reason for not to withhold bail to an accused for suffering pre-trial punishment. Besides, whatever may be the allegation, it is only allegation, but it cannot constitute guilt of the accused, unless the same is established in the trial in the standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It is no more res integra that even on existence of prima facie case, a person accused of any offence can still be granted bail, provided the situation so demands and the accused person therein has made out a case for grant of bail. Grant of bail should not be confused with acquittal of the accused, since grant of bail is a temporary release from the custody on the assurance of the accused to attend the trial by binding himself with surety to give guarantee to attend at the trial.
In this case, no material has in fact been collected to suggest that the petitioners would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if released on bail. In addition, the petitioner-Abhisek Rout is a candidate in the exam, whereas the petitioner-Gola @ Soumya Ranjan Sahoo is a student, but the petitioners-Alex Raj Pani and Rupesh Kumar Jha were allegedly running Coaching Centre. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and on consideration of materials placed on record together with the inherent right of the accused-petitioners to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and the trial having not yet commenced, even after submission of charge-sheet, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits each of the petitioners to bail.
Hence, these three bail applications of the petitioners namely Alex Raj Pani and Rupesh Kumar Jha (In BLAPL No.6392 of 2026), Gola @ Soumya Ranjan Sahoo (In BLAPL No.6711 of 2026) and Abhisek Rout (In BLAPL No.7307 of 2026) are allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each 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.
Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. 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.