Sakil Khan vs State Of Odisha

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above-mentioned matters, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience and proper adjudication, CRLMC No.1850 of 2026 is treated as the leading case.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh in S.T. Case No.119 of 2023 seeking cancelling the bail of the Petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 19.05.2025 the informant who is the A.S.I, of Tigiria PS, lodged an F.I.R. alleging therein that on 18.03.2025 at about 11.15 P.M. while he along with his staff were performing patrolling duty at about 3.30 A.M. he received an information regarding one Bolero vehicle loaded with cattle was coming from Maniabandh side, proceeding to Chandikhol, for slaughtering the said cattle and four persons in two bikes were escorting the said vehicle. After receiving the said information, the patrolling party along with two witnesses rushed to the spot and they saw there two bikes with four persons and the Bolero vehicle were coming from Bindhanima side and out of suspicion, the Informant stopped the alleged vehicle, but the persons who were escorting the vehicle managed to escape from the spot. It is alleged that after intercepting the vehicle, the driver and two other persons fled from the spot. The informant and his staff chased them but one accused dealt a blow to the informant causing injury on his right palm, but, subsequently, they could apprehend two accused persons at the spot and on being interrogated they disclosed their names and further confessed that they were transporting cattle to different places with the help of the present petitioner and other accused persons. They further told that accused Hassan Khan and others were escorting them in two bikes and said Hassan Khan managed to escape after assaulting the police officer and he had made available the said Bolero vehicle to them for transporting. Then, the informant seized the said Bolero vehicle along with the cattle and produced them before the IIC to take legal action against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

It is submitted that as per the order of this Court passed in BLAPL No.7903 of 2023 vide order dated 31.07.2023, the petitioner was released on bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Athagarh, with the conditions that;

As per the direction of this Court, on 05.08.2023 the petitioner was released on bail by furnishing solvent surety on his behalf and abiding the terms and conditions of the bail order the petitioner was regularly attending the trial court till 02.05.2026.

On 02.05.2026, the prosecution filed an application under Section-483(3) of B.N.S.S. with a prayer to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner on the ground that after releasing on bail, the petitioner has committed the similar type of offences.

The learned Trial Court, without affording the Petitioner any opportunity to file a reply to the show cause or objection as to why the bail granted to him should not be cancelled, acted in a wholly arbitrary and whimsical manner by allowing the prosecution's application on the very same day, i.e., 02.05.2026, and cancelled the Petitioner's bail bond.

On 02.05.2026, the learned Public Prosecutor filed an application before the learned trial court seeking cancellation of the Petitioner's bail, primarily relying upon the Petitioner's alleged antecedents. On the very same day, without affording the Petitioner any opportunity to file an objection or reply to the show cause against the proposed cancellation of bail, the learned trial court was pleased to allow the said application and proceeded to cancel the bail granted to the Petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court.

The impugned order dated 02.05.2026 revealed that the Petitioner violated the terms and conditions of bail and committed a similar nature of offence while on bail by allegedly involved in Tigiria P.S. Case No. 92 of 2025, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 34 of 2026. However, in the said case also, the Petitioner had already been enlarged on bail by this Court in BLAPL No. 2737 of 2026. In fact, the learned trial Court itself released the Petitioner on bail pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by this Court in BLAPL No. 2737 of 2026. Thus, the learned trial Court was fully aware that this Court, after taking into consideration the Petitioner's previous criminal antecedents as well as the allegations in the subsequent case, had consciously exercised its discretion to grant bail. In such circumstances, the learned trial court could not have relied upon the very same antecedents and facts of the subsequent case as a ground for cancellation of the Petitioner's bail, particularly in the absence of any supervening circumstances or misuse of the liberty granted by this Court.

The learned trial Court, without properly scrutinizing the materials available on record and in complete disregard to the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by this Court in BLAPL No. 2737 of 2026, has mechanically passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's bail. Hence, the impugned order is wholly illegal and unsustainable in law, having been passed without proper application of judicial mind.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Athagarh, without following the principle of natural justice hastily and arbitrarily cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity to put his stand by filing objection to the application filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking cancellation of the bail of the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor for cancellation of bail neither disclosed nor made any reference to Tigiria P.S. Case No. 92 of 2025, which has subsequently been relied upon in the impugned order. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from arbitrariness, violation of the principles of natural justice, and non-application of judicial mind. Such an arbitrary and illegal order is wholly unsustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer made in the present petition.

It is submitted that, pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in BLAPL No. 7903 of 2023, the petitioner was released on bail by the learned court below vide order dated 05.08.2023, subject to certain conditions, one of which was that he shall not commit any offence while on bail. However, after his release, the petitioner allegedly committed further offences, including in connection with Tigiria P.S. Case No. 92 dated 19.05.2025, besides other criminal cases. Consequently, the petitioner was found to have violated the conditions of bail imposed by this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid BLAPL. Accordingly, the learned court below, in exercise of the liberty reserved by this Hon'ble Court, recalled the bail order dated 05.08.2023 on account of such violation.

ii) The petitioner was released on bail by the learned court below vide order dated 05.08.2023, pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in BLAPL No. 7903 of 2023, subject to certain conditions, one of which specifically stipulated that the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. This Court had further granted liberty to the court below to cancel the bail without further reference to this Court in the event of violation of any of the conditions of bail or if a case for cancellation of bail was otherwise made out. It was also specifically observed that the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in similar offences in future, on a prima facie accusation, may be treated as a valid ground for cancellation of the bail granted in the present case. Subsequently, during the subsistence of the bail, the petitioner was again found involved in a similar nature of offence, which was registered as Tigiria P.S. Case No. 92 of 2025 under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 132, 109(1), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 7 of the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960. The petitioner's involvement in the aforesaid case prima facie demonstrates his disregard for the law and constitutes a clear violation of the conditions imposed while granting bail.

iii) In view of such conduct and in terms of the liberty expressly reserved by this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 31.07.2023, the learned court below rightly cancelled the petitioner's bail vide order dated 05.08.2023. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present CRLMC is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. After hearing the parties, two questions fall for consideration i.e. First, whether cancellation of a validly subsisting bail order can be affected without notice to the person concerned and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. Second, whether the very same subsequent case, already noticed and weighed by this Court while granting bail to the petitioner in the later case, could by itself furnish a fresh and independent ground for the trial court to cancel the earlier bail.

On the first question, cancellation of bail touches the personal liberty of an accused and is not to be treated lightly or as a mere formality. Even where liberty is reserved by the trial court to recall bail without reference to the High Court, such liberty is not liberty to act unilaterally without hearing the accused. The reservation only dispenses with the need to approach the High Court again, it does not dispense with the minimum requirement of fairness owed to the person whose liberty stands curtailed. Ordinarily, an accused who is enjoying bail is entitled to notice and an opportunity to show cause before the liberty is withdrawn, save in a case of genuine urgency where immediate custody is required to prevent further harm or to secure the presence of the accused. No such urgency is reflected in the impugned order or is otherwise shown to exist. The application was filed and allowed on the very same day dated 02.05.2026, without issuing notice to the petitioner and without granting him any opportunity to place his stand. This by itself renders the exercise of power procedurally flawed.

On the second question, the record shows that the very case now relied upon for cancellation, Tigiria P.S. Case No.92 of 2025, was already before this Court and was consciously weighed while granting bail to the petitioner in the connected matter vide order dated 29.04.2026 in BLAPL No.2737 of 2026. It was pursuant to that very order that the trial court itself released the petitioner on bail in the subsequent case.

Once this Court, with full knowledge of the petitioner's antecedents and of the pendency of the subsequent case, has taken a considered view and extended the benefit of bail, the trial court cannot treat the self-same case as a supervening circumstance justifying cancellation of the earlier bail, unless something further is shown, such as misuse of liberty after the grant of bail in the subsequent case, tampering with evidence, threat to witnesses, or abscondence. No such additional material is referred to in the impugned order. What the trial court has in effect done is to revisit and undo, through the mechanism of cancellation of the earlier bail, a discretion already and independently exercised by this Court in the later matter though that course is not open to it.

It is also relevant that the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor did not even set out the particulars of Tigiria P.S. Case No.92 of 2025, though the same was relied upon in the impugned order. An order affecting personal liberty, ought at the least, to rest on grounds of which the person concerned had notice and an opportunity to meet. The impugned order does not satisfy that basic requirement.

For these reasons the impugned order dated 02.05.2026 cannot be sustained. This is, however, not to say that the application for cancellation of bail is without any basis whatsoever. The question whether the petitioner has in fact misused the liberty granted to him, and whether a case for cancellation of bail is independently made out on materials beyond what has already been considered by this Court in BLAPL No.2737 of 2026, is left open to be examined afresh by the trial court, after due notice to the petitioner and after affording him a fair opportunity of hearing.

In the result, the impugned order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh in S.T. Case No.119 of 2023 is set aside. The application filed by the prosecution under Section 483(3) of the B.N.S.S. is restored to the file of the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity to file objection and be heard. The trial court shall dispose of the application, as far as practicable, within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

Pending such fresh consideration, the petitioner shall be released on the same bail bond and on the same terms and conditions as were operating prior to the impugned order, subject to his furnishing a fresh undertaking before the trial court that he shall not commit any offence while on bail and shall cooperate with the proceedings.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, including those in Tigiria P.S. Case No.92 of 2025, and the trial court shall decide the application for cancellation of bail uninfluenced by any observation made herein, which are confined to the disposal of the present petition.

The CRLMC No.1850 of 2026 and connected matters are, accordingly, disposed of.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stand vacated. No order as to costs.