Facts
The three petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding a dacoity at Mannapuram Finance Ltd., Sambalpur, where 27.52 Kgs of gold and cash were robbed at gunpoint
Source reference: p. 1-2Pankaj Kumar Paswan was identified in a Test Identification (TI) parade, which he contested due to the absence of similar-looking persons
Source reference: p. 2Yash Anand @ Rishu was accused of receiving ₹3.5 Crores of the proceeds, and Anuj Kumar Shaw was alleged to have received the looted gold
Source reference: p. 4Procedural history shows the case pending before the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, for offences under Sections 310(2)/62(2) of the BNS and the Arms Act
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given the gravity of the offence and the nature of evidence, including TI parade identification
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the suppression or incomplete disclosure of criminal antecedents by the applicants disqualifies them from being granted discretionary relief of bail
Source reference: p. 4-6Law Applied
The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding bail
Source reference: p. 1It relied on the principle that a detailed analysis of evidence (merits of a TI parade) is impermissible at the bail stage
Source reference: p. 4the doctrine of "clean hands" in seeking discretionary relief, as established in Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), which holds that suppression of material facts regarding criminal history disentitles a petitioner to bail
Source reference: p. 5Zeba Khan v. State of UP (2026), emphasizing the solemn obligation of applicants to provide a fair and candid disclosure of all material facts, including criminal antecedents, to maintain the integrity of bail adjudication
Source reference: p. 5-6Reasoning
The Court observed that the dacoity involved property worth approximately ₹11.5 Crores, indicating the gravity of the offence
Source reference: p. 3Regarding Pankaj Paswan, the Court refused to adjudicate the validity of the TI parade, noting that meticulous examination of evidence is prohibited during bail proceedings
Source reference: p. 4Critically, the Court found that Anuj Kumar Shaw had materially suppressed four pending criminal cases across different states, including charges of dacoity and Arms Act violations
Source reference: p. 5Similarly, Yash Anand failed to provide specific details regarding his seven criminal antecedents
Source reference: p. 4Applying the precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court reasoned that such selective disclosure and suppression of material facts constitute an abuse of the process of law, striking at the root of the administration of justice and negating the grounds for discretionary relief
Source reference: p. 6-7Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the nature of the crime, the prima facie involvement of the petitioners, and the material suppression of criminal antecedents precluded the grant of bail
Consequently, the bail applications for Pankaj Kumar Paswan, Anuj Kumar Shaw, and Yash Anand @ Rishu were rejected
Source reference: p. 7The Court ordered the transmission of a copy of the judgment to the lower court in seisin of the matter
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
PANKAJ KUMAR PASWANvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in