AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
Since these four 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 bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Angul P.S. Case No. 1182 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2729 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Angul, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 308(3)/ 296/ 126(2)/109(1)/117(2)/351(2)/118(2)/ 3(5) of B.N.S, on the main allegation of attempting to the life of one Bhabani Sankar Pradhan by assaulting and firing at him, along with co-accused persons by entering into conspiracy with each other and thereby, causing penetrative wound injuries to said Bhabani Sankar Pradhan.
Heard, Mr. Rabi Narayan Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. PP in these matters and perused the record.
Admittedly, the petitioner Litun Pattanaik @ Pattanayak is having 11 criminal antecedents, but the petitioner has disclosed 02 criminal antecedents in his bail application. Similarly, the petitioner Sushil Kumar Naik is allegedly involved in 04 criminal cases, but he has not disclosed his antecedents in his bail application. These aforesaid facts amount to suppression of material facts. In regards to suppression of material facts, this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph-9 has observed that 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. On consideration of materials placed on record, this Court finds allegation against the petitioner Mahesh Nayak for firing at the injured and the injured Bhabani Sankar Pradhan has sustained penetrative wound injury. Further, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner- Sekh Anwar Hussen for firing at the injured and there is only simple allegation against him for assaulting the injured, but he is not reported to have no criminal antecedent. Besides, co-accused Lipu @ Dharmananda Mallick, Happy @ Manas Ranjan Mallick, Dillip Kumar Mallick @ Malik & Subham Rout @ Chenti have already been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL Nos. 4366, 4374, 4396 & 1275 of 2026.
In the aforesaid facts and situation and on consideration of materials placed on record, this Court while not being inclined to grant bail to the Petitioners the Litun Pattanaik @ Pattanayak, Mahesh Nayak & Sushil Kumar Naik, considers it proper to grant bail to the Petitioner Sekh Anwar Hussen by extending the principle of parity.
Hence, the bail application of the Petitioners Litun Pattanaik @ Pattanayak (BLAPL No. 6581 of 2026), Mahesh Nayak (BLAPL No. 7074 of 2026) & Sushil Kumar Naik (BLAPL No. 7230 of 2026) stand rejected, whereas the bail application of the petitioner namely Sekh Anwar Hussen (BLAPL No. 6894 of 2026) stands allowed and consequently, the Petitioner Sekh Anwar Hussen 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 as deem fit and proper by it.
Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.