Orissa HC denies bail to three policemen accused in custodial death, citing 24 injuries and concerns about witness influence

The three petitioners—a constable, an Additional Sub-Inspector and a Sub-Inspector—sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after the Sessions Court rejected their applications.

They were in custody from 29 August 2025 in connection with a case alleging offences including culpable homicide, destruction of evidence and common intention, arising from the death of Akash Mahuria during a police operation in 2017.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was assaulted by police personnel; the petitioners relied, among other matters, on the completed investigation, their period of custody and the contention that the injuries resulted from a fall from a motorcycle.

The State and informant opposed bail, citing witness accounts, the medical evidence and risks to witnesses.

Whether the petitioners should be granted bail in light of their period of custody, the completion of investigation and the asserted delay in trial.

Whether the allegations, witness material, medical evidence and apprehension of witness influence justified refusing bail at this stage.

Under Section 483 BNSS, the High Court or Sessions Court may grant bail, exercising its discretion in accordance with established bail principles. Relevant factors include the prima facie basis of the accusation, its nature and gravity, likely punishment, risk of absconding, likelihood of reoffending or influencing witnesses, and the danger of justice being thwarted (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496).

The rule that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” (State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308) is applied with regard to the circumstances of the case; incarceration alone is not determinative.

The Court also relied on D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746, for the State’s duty to protect the life and dignity of persons in custody, and referred to State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar, (2024) 14 SCC 265, as approved in Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., (2024) 13 SCC 678.

Article 21 protects every person’s right to life and personal liberty, including a person in custody.

The Court treated prolonged custody as relevant but insufficient, by itself, to warrant release.

It considered the witness statements describing assaults and identifying two petitioners, as well as the role attributed to the third petitioner as the police officer leading the team.

The post-mortem report recorded 24 injuries, including a skull fracture and other injuries attributed to impact with hard, blunt objects; the Court also considered allegations of attempts to obtain medical opinions favourable to the petitioners and the apprehension that witnesses could be influenced.

Weighing those circumstances against the bail factors, the Court concluded that release at that stage could undermine the trial.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and did not determine the merits of the charges.

It left them at liberty to renew their bail applications before the Trial Court after examination of the material witnesses, with any renewed application to be considered on its own merits.

The Trial Court was also asked to endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.