BIBHU@PRABHUDUTTA PARIDA vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLA No.117 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010047692025

(In the matter of application U/S.14-(A)(2) of SC & ST

Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

Bibhu @ Prabhudutta Parida
and another
…. Appellants
-versus-

State of Odisha …. Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. S.C. Mahapatra, Sr.
Advocate along with Mr. P.
Mohapatra, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP
Mr. A.C. Behera, Advocate
(informant)

CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:07.09.2026(ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal in nature of Section 14-A
of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016
(in short, “the Act”) by the appellants is directed against
the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed in CT Case
No.209 of 2024 by which the learned Presiding Officer,
CRLA No.117 of 2025
Page 1 of 6

Spl. Court (SC & ST), Cuttack has refused to grant bail to
the appellant in connection with Khuntuni PS Case No.186
of 2024 for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.
126(2)/296/117(2)/118(2)/109/103/3(5) of BNS r/w Sec.
3(1)(r)(s)/2(v)(va) of the Act, on the main allegation of
committing murder of the deceased Suryakanta Samal,
and injuring Sidhartha Behera & Sanjay Behera, all of
them belonging to SC category by abusing them in filthy
language, uttering their Caste’s name and assaulting
them with pointed and sharp cutting weapon by taking
advantage of their Caste.
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Soura Chandra
Mohapatra, learned Sr. counsel, who is being assisted by
Mr. Puspamitra Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
Appellants submits by referring to the copy of deposition
of PWs1 to PW12 that the incident occurred in a
procession for immersion of Lord Ganesh, but the
witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses have deposed
against the Appellants in different manner and some of
the witnesses have totally exonerated the Appellants,
whereas some of the witnesses have partially implicated,
CRLA No.117 of 2025
Page 2 of 6

but PW1 has specifically implicated Appellant No.1 for his
role in this case, however, the PM report of the deceased
reveals one stab injury on his abdomen and some
abrasions, but the act of stabbing the deceased is
directed against co-accused Deepak Behera and thereby,
the evidence of the witnesses being discrepant, cannot be
relied upon to refuse bail to the Appellants, more
particularly when Appellant No.1 is in custody since
11.09.2024 and Appellant No.2 is in custody since
24.12.2024 being surrendered. Accordingly, on the
aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohapatra prays to grant bail
to the Appellants.
2.1. In opposing such prayer for bail, Mr. R.B.
Mishra, learned Addl. PP by highlighting the evidence of
the witnesses submits that not only the witnesses have
testified against the Appellants, but also the PM report
vindicates the allegation against the Appellants for
stabbing the deceased and thereby, the Appellants having
been found involved in this case on prima facie material
without examination of material witness Manas Lenka,
CRLA No.117 of 2025
Page 3 of 6

the Criminal Appeal for grant of bail to the Appellants
may kindly be rejected.
2.2. Mr. Arjun Charan Behera, learned counsel for
the Informant by relying upon the judgment passed by
this Court in CRLA No. 146 of 2025 submits that not only
the present Appellants stands on similar footing with that
of co-accused Santosh Behera whose bail application has
already been rejected, but also there is prima facie
material against the Appellants and the incident being
preceded by threatening given to the informant party in
this case and the deceased having died a homicidal
death, the bail application of the Appellants may kindly
be rejected.
3. After having considered the rival submission
upon perusal of record, the main allegation of stabbing
the deceased and injured Sidhartha Behera appears to be
against co-accused Deepak Behera and Santosh Behera.
The PM report of the deceased reveals his death to be on
account of hemorrhage and shock resulting out of the
abdomen injury and according to the Doctor conducting
autopsy, the external injury no.(i) which was a stab
CRLA No.117 of 2025
Page 4 of 6

wound is fatal in ordinary course of nature and rest of the
injuries vide injury no.(ii) to (vi) are considered to be
non-fatal as per the Doctor, but the allegations against
the Appellants are omnibus in nature and no specific
allegation appears against the Appellants. Besides, the
Appellants are in custody since 11.09.2024 and
24.12.2024 and in the meantime, the material witnesses
have already been examined and thereby, there is little
chance of tampering of prosecution evidence of material
witnesses. Additionally, the Appellants have got inherent
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the
trial, but securing attendance of the accused at the trial is
paramount consideration in granting bail which should not
be confused with acquittal of the accused person,
inasmuch as granting bail to an accused is temporary
release of accused from custody on his assurance to
attend the trial by binding himself with surety, who
guarantees the presence of accused at the trial. There are
other charge sheeted witnesses who are yet to be
examined and the trial is not likely to be concluded in
near future. In the aforesaid premises and on
CRLA No.117 of 2025
Page 5 of 6

consideration of materials placed on record keeping in
view the evidence of witnesses so far examined and no
material being collected to suggest that the Appellants
would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if
released on bail, this Court without expressing any view
on merit considers it proper to admit the Appellants to
bail.
4. Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and
the impugned order is hereby set aside. Consequently,
the Appellants are directed to be released on bail on such
terms and conditions except cash surety as deems fit

and proper by it.
5. Accordingly, the CRLA stands disposed of. A
copy of this order be immediately communicated to the
concerned Court.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge



Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 7 September, 2026/Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 07-Sep-2026 18:43:57
CRLA No.117 of 2025
Page 6 of 6