Suppression of material criminal antecedents disentitles an accused to the discretionary relief of bail.

The four petitioners—Litun Pattanaik @ Pattanayak, Sekh Anwar Hussen, Mahesh Nayak and Sushil Kumar Naik—filed applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking bail in Angul P.S. Case No. 1182 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2729 of 2025, pending before the learned SDJM, Angul.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, acting in conspiracy with co-accused persons, entered into an assault and firing incident intended to endanger the life of Bhabani Sankar Pradhan, causing him penetrative wound injuries.

The Court noted that Litun Pattanaik had 11 criminal antecedents but disclosed only two in his bail application, while Sushil Kumar Naik was allegedly involved in four criminal cases but disclosed none.

The Court also considered the allegations against Mahesh Nayak, who was alleged to have fired at the injured, and against Sekh Anwar Hussen, against whom there was no specific allegation of firing and only a general allegation of assault.

The Court further noted that certain co-accused had already been granted bail.

Whether Litun Pattanaik, Mahesh Nayak and Sushil Kumar Naik were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the allegations against them and, in the case of Litun and Sushil, suppression or incomplete disclosure of criminal antecedents.

Whether Sekh Anwar Hussen was entitled to bail on the principle of parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail, considering the absence of a specific allegation that he had fired at the injured.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 308(3), 296, 126(2), 109(1), 117(2), 351(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court relied on Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, particularly paragraph 9, for the principle that suppression of material facts concerning criminal antecedents disentitles an applicant from discretionary bail.

It also applied the principle of parity, under which an accused may be granted bail where similarly placed co-accused have already received bail, subject to the individual role and circumstances of the accused.

The Court declined bail to Litun Pattanaik and Sushil Kumar Naik because their failure to fully disclose their criminal antecedents amounted to suppression of material facts, thereby disentitling them to the discretionary relief of bail under the principle stated in Munnesh .

Bail was also refused to Mahesh Nayak because the materials alleged that he had fired at the injured, who sustained penetrative wound injuries, indicating a serious and specific role in the occurrence.

In contrast, no specific allegation of firing was made against Sekh Anwar Hussen; the allegation against him was limited to assault, and the Court found no reported criminal antecedent against him.

Since co-accused persons with comparable circumstances had already been granted bail, the Court extended the benefit of parity to Sekh Anwar Hussen.

The bail application of Sekh Anwar Hussen was allowed on the principle of parity.

He was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin of the case, subject to such further terms and conditions as that court might impose.

All four applications were accordingly disposed of, and a soft copy of the judgment was directed to be communicated to the concerned court and jail authorities.