SUNIL MALLICK vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.4645 of 2026
CNR NO.ODHC010341822026

(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).


Sunil Mallick and others … Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha … Opposite Party



For Petitioner : Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. B.P. Mishra,
Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP


CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY





DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:08.09.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS
by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with
Cuttack Sadar PS Case No.214 of 2026 corresponding
to GR Case No.467 of 2026 pending in the file of
learned JMFC(R), Cuttack for commission of offences
punishable U/Ss.140(3)/140(2)/115(2)/303(2)/351
(2)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of abducting
the victim-informant for repayment of Rs.2 Lakhs,
which was received by him towards advance for
BLAPL No.4645 of 2026 Page 1 of 5

arranging a piece of land to the petitioner No.1 and
assaulting the informant as well as taking away his
gold chain and a sum of Rs.2,000/- through PhonePe.
2. Heard, Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned
Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Bibhu
Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
in the matter and perused the record together with
the affidavit sworn in by the Inspector-in-Charge,
Sadar Police Station, Cuttack.
3. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court
on yesterday, the IIC, Sadar PS, Cuttack appeared in
person and expresses remorse for the typographical
mistake occurred in the contents of the affidavit
regarding date of apprehension of the accused
persons as 29.03.2026 instead of correct date of
28.03.2026. Accordingly, the IIC, Sadar PS, Cuttack
by way of a written apology prays to leave him for
the first time and, accordingly, the IIC, Sadar PS,
Cuttack Mr. Tusar Kanta Sethi is advised to remain
BLAPL No.4645 of 2026 Page 2 of 5

careful in future while swearing an affidavit to be
produced before a Court of law. The personal
attendance of the IIC, Sadar PS, Cuttack Mr. Tusar
Kanta Sethi stands dispensed with.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners have set up
the plea of con-compliance of Section 58 of BNSS r/w
Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India for grant of
bail. The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2)
of the Constitution of India provides that no person
shall be detained in custody beyond 24 hours without
an authority of the Magistrate. In this case, not only
from the record, but also from the statement of the
IIC as made today, it is found that the accused
petitioners were apprehended on 28.03.2026, but
they were produced before the Court after 4.40PM on
30.03.2026 as evident from the copy of the command
certificate annexed to the affidavit of the IIC, Sadar
PS, Cuttack. No doubt, the accused petitioners were
apprehended in the jungle near Phulbani in the
district of Kandhamal on 28.03.2026, but no time has
been stated or mentioned on any document on
BLAPL No.4645 of 2026 Page 3 of 5

record, however, considering the production of the
accused-petitioners before the Court after 4.40PM on
30.03.2026 and their apprehension on 28.03.2026
and excluding the 10 hours’ time necessary for
journey between the place of arrest and to the Court
at Cuttack, which would be roughly around 260kms,
the time consumed by the investigating agency to
produce before the Court should be more than 40
hours. It is, therefore, clear that the accused
petitioners have been detained in custody beyond 24
hours without any authority of a Magistrate and,
thereby, they are entitled to the discretionary relief of
bail inasmuch as the arrest of the accused petitioners
and their subsequent remand are considered to be
vitiated for not being produced before the Magistrate
within the constitutional time limit of 24 hours
excluding the time necessary for journey from the
place of arrest of the accused to the Court of
Magistrate. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstance and on consideration of materials
placed on record, this Court without expressing any
BLAPL No.4645 of 2026 Page 4 of 5

view on merits admits each of the petitioners to bail
for non-compliance of Section 58 of BNSS r/w Article
22(2) of the Constitution of India.
5. Hence, the bail application of the
petitioners stands allowed and the petitioners are
allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with
one solvent surety 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.
6. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands 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.


(G. Satapathy)
Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 8 day of September, 2026/Subhasmita

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 08-Sep-2026 19:38:57
BLAPL No.4645 of 2026 Page 5 of 5