High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 08 OHC CK 1903

Prasanna Kumar Pradhan @ Muna vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Bench · Decided on 25 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Satapathy, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
BLAPL NO.5729 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 796 words

G. Satapathy, J.

1.

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Gop PS Case No. 31 of 2026 corresponding to GR Case No.79 of 2026 pending in the file of learned JMFC, Konark, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.296/332(c)/115(2)/351(2)/103(1)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Ramaniranjan Pattanaik and causing injury to Rama Ranjan Pattanaik by assaulting them with a cricket bat.

2.

In the course of hearing, Mr.Suryakant Dash, learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Gajendranath Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there appears allegation against the petitioner for committing murder of the deceased, but the fact remains that the deceased died of a natural disease and thereby, the offence U/S. 103 of BNS is not at all attracted against the petitioner. In support of such contention, Mr.Dash has taken this Court to the opinion of the Doctor as to cause of death of the deceased. Mr.Dash further submits that even the deceased has not suffered any injury and he died one day after the occurrence and even taking into account the materials so placed on record, at best it would be a case U/S. 118(1) of BNS which is bailable in nature and thereby, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.

2.1.

In opposing such prayer of the petitioner, Mr.Dhananjaya Mund, learned counsel for the informant submits that not only the petitioner has been alleged to have assaulted the deceased indiscriminately, but also he has assaulted the brother the deceased causing injury to him and the eye witnesses account clearly indicts the present petitioner in this case, but there are number of eye witnesses and release of the petitioner on bail would facilitate him to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Mr.Mund further submits that the eye witnesses have clearly stated that the petitioner has indiscriminately assaulted the deceased which led to the death of the deceased and injury to the injured and thereby, the petitioner’s bail application may kindly be rejected.

2.2.

In echoing such submissions, Mr.T.K.Acharya, learned Addl. PP submits that not only the petitioner has assaulted the deceased, but also has assaulted the injured and the PM report clearly reveals about external injuries sustained by the deceased and thereby, the petitioner having been prima facie involved in a case in a gruesome case of murder which is confirmed in the charge sheet, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

3.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for assaulting the deceased by means of a cricket bat, but the PM report of the deceased reveals the followings:-

(i)

There is no external injury present over the body suggestive marks of violence or trauma,

(ii)

The findings of heart are suggestive of coronary artery disease, fibrotic changes suggestive of old myocardial infraction and acute myocardial infraction that is grossly one to three days which is fatal in ordinary course of nature,

(iii)

The cause of death is due to acute on chronic myocardial infraction and its complications.

Further, the injured Rama Ranjan Pattanaik has sustained some simple injuries, but the apprehension of the informant can be curbed by imposing appropriate conditions. Further, there is no criminal antecedent reported against the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the mode and manner of implication of the present petitioner and regard being had to the circumstance under which the deceased died and taking into account the opinion of the Doctor as to cause of death of the deceased, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to certain conditions.

4.

Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond 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 with following conditions:-

(i)

The petitioner shall not contact the family members of the deceased,

(ii)

The petitioner shall not threaten, induce, influence or coerce any of the witnesses including the family members of the informant acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court.

(iii)

The petitioner shall cooperate the trial by appearing before the trial Court.

5.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. 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.