Bail granted where post-mortem indicated cardiac disease as the cause of death despite assault allegations.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Gop P.S. Case No. 31 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 79 of 2026, pending before the JMFC, Konark.

He was accused of offences under Sections 296, 332(c), 115(2), 351(2), 103(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, principally involving the alleged assault of Ramaniranjan Pattanaik with a cricket bat, resulting in his death, and the assault of Rama Ranjan Pattanaik, causing simple injuries.

The petitioner contended that the deceased died from acute-on-chronic myocardial infarction and not from the alleged assault, and that Section 103 BNS was therefore not attracted.

The informant and the State opposed bail, relying on eyewitness accounts, the alleged indiscriminate assault, the post-mortem report, and the apprehension of witness tampering.

The post-mortem report recorded no external injury suggestive of violence, coronary artery disease, old myocardial infarction, acute myocardial infarction, and death due to acute-on-chronic myocardial infarction and its complications.

The Court also noted that the injured person had sustained simple injuries and that no criminal antecedent was reported against the petitioner.

1. Whether, having regard to the post-mortem findings and the circumstances of death, the petitioner should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 BNSS despite the allegation of an offence under Section 103(1) BNS.

2. Whether the apprehension of the informant and the prosecution regarding witness tampering could be addressed through appropriate bail conditions.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to consider and grant bail in appropriate cases.

The Court applied the established bail principle that, at the pre-trial stage, the Court assesses the available material, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the medical and other evidence, the possibility of interference with witnesses, and the accused’s criminal antecedents, without conducting a final adjudication on the merits.

The Court also considered the alleged offences under Sections 103(1) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly in the context of whether the medical evidence prima facie connected the alleged assault with the deceased’s death.

The Court accepted that there was an allegation that the petitioner assaulted the deceased with a cricket bat, but found that the post-mortem report did not disclose any external injury or marks of violence and attributed the death to acute-on-chronic myocardial infarction and its complications.

Although the prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts and the charge-sheet allegation of murder, the medical opinion and the absence of criminal antecedents weighed in favour of bail.

The injury to Rama Ranjan Pattanaik was described as simple.

The Court did not conclusively determine whether Section 103(1) BNS was made out, expressly stating that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits; instead, it assessed the material for the limited purpose of deciding bail.

The apprehension of witness intimidation was addressed by prohibiting contact with the deceased’s family and by restraining the petitioner from threatening, inducing, influencing, or coercing witnesses.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to such further terms as that court might impose.

Conditions included: not contacting the deceased’s family; not threatening, inducing, influencing, or coercing witnesses; and cooperating with the trial by appearing before the trial court.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of, and an urgent certified copy was directed to be issued and communicated to the concerned court and jail authorities.