01Facts
The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No. 232 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 228 of 2026, pending before the JMFC, Kabisuryanagar.
p. 1They were accused under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 190 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in relation to an alleged riot in which the petitioners and other accused, allegedly armed with deadly weapons, assaulted Akhaya Kumar Patra, Ajaya Kumar Patra and Tukula Patra and attempted on their lives.
p. 2The petitioners had been in custody since 22 April 2026, and the police had submitted the charge-sheet during the period of custody.
p. 3The petitioners relied on the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused persons, including Shantilata Behera, in ABLAPL No. 5095 of 2026.
pp. 2–302Issues
i.Whether the petitioners, being allegedly similarly situated to co-accused who had already been granted bail, were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, on the principle of parity.
pp. 2–4ii.Whether the benefit of bail was subject to the conditions relating to criminal antecedents and the nature of injuries suffered by the informant’s side or the petitioners’ side during the incident.
p. 3 · p. 503Law Applied
The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.
pp. 1–2It considered the principle of parity, under which an accused similarly situated to co-accused already granted bail may ordinarily receive similar relief, subject to distinguishing circumstances.
pp. 2–4The alleged offences were under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 190 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
pp. 1–2The Court also adopted the conditions imposed in the earlier bail order in ABLAPL No. 5095 of 2026, namely that bail would not operate where the concerned accused had criminal antecedents or where a person from the informant’s side had suffered grievous injuries, while preserving the benefit of bail where the petitioners or persons from their side had equally suffered grievous injuries.
p. 3 · p. 5Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 109Section 115Section 118Section 190Section 333
04Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioners could claim parity with the co-accused who had already been granted bail and that the earlier bail order had not been challenged by either the informant or the State.
p. 3The petitioners had remained in custody for a substantial period, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the allegations concerned a group assault involving the petitioners and eighteen other accused.
p. 3Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that these circumstances, together with the existing order granting bail to similarly placed co-accused, justified extending the same terms and conditions to the petitioners.
p. 405Holding
The Court allowed both bail applications and directed that Sahil Raulo and Santunu Sethy be released on bail on the same bail amount and on such terms and conditions as determined by the court concerned.
p. 4However, the benefit was not to be extended if the relevant petitioner had criminal antecedents or if anyone from the informant’s side had suffered grievous injuries during the incident.
p. 5The petitioners were nevertheless to be released on bail if they or anyone from their side had suffered equally grievous injuries.
p. 5Both BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of, and a soft copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned court and jail authorities.
p. 5Original Court PDF
SAHIL RAULO @ SAHIL RAULA @ GUNJANvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
