Bail is warranted after charge-sheeting where offences are Magistrate-triable and no absconding or witness-tampering risk exists.

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Markatnagar P.S. Case No. 182 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 654 of 2026, pending before the learned JMFC-I (Cognizance Taking), Cuttack.

The case arose from allegations of unfair means during the Odisha Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2025. Abhisek Rout, a candidate, was allegedly found using a concealed Bluetooth earbud connected to a mobile phone during the examination. During investigation, Alex Raj Pani, Rupesh Kumar Jha and Gola @ Soumya Ranjan Sahoo were allegedly found to have provided unauthorised electronic assistance to him.

The petitioners were taken into custody and had remained in custody since 7 June 2026. The investigation was completed and a charge-sheet was filed alleging offences under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 11(1)/12 of the Odisha Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

Their antecedents were verified and no adverse criminal history was found.

1. Whether the petitioners should be released on bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the allegations of conspiracy and use of unfair means in a competitive examination?

2. Whether continued pre-trial detention was justified after completion of investigation and submission of the charge-sheet, where the offences were triable by a Magistrate and carried no punishment exceeding seven years?

3. Whether the materials disclosed a reasonable likelihood that the petitioners would abscond or threaten witnesses if released on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The prosecution invoked Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 11(1) and 12 of the Odisha Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

The Court reiterated that an accusation cannot be treated as proof of guilt before trial; an accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and detention should not become pre-trial punishment.

It further held that grant of bail does not amount to acquittal and is ordinarily based on the accused’s undertaking to attend the trial and comply with conditions imposed by the court.

The Court accepted that the allegations indicated that the petitioners had acted in concert to facilitate unfair means in the examination.

However, the allegations remained matters for adjudication at trial and could not, by themselves, justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration.

The petitioners had been in custody since 7 June 2026, the investigation had concluded, and the charge-sheet had been filed, thereby reducing the need for further custodial detention.

The offences were triable by a Magistrate and did not prescribe punishment exceeding seven years. Further, none of the petitioners had adverse criminal antecedents, and the record contained no material suggesting that they would abscond or threaten witnesses if released.

Applying the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is not acquittal, the Court found that the petitioners had made out a case for release without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Each petitioner was required to furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, subject to such further terms and conditions as the court in seisin of the case deemed appropriate, excluding cash surety.

The BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of, and the order was directed to be communicated electronically to the concerned court and jail authorities.