Niranjan Rout vs State Of Odisha on 8 July, 2025

Orissa High Court

Niranjan Rout vs State Of Odisha on 8 July, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    CRLA No.625 of 2025
  (In the matter of an appeal Under Section-14(A)(2) of SC
  & ST(PoA) Act)

   Niranjan Rout                                 ....              Appellant
                                      -versus-
   State Of Odisha                               ....           Respondent


   For Appellant          :    Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate

   For Respondent : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP
                    Mr. P.K. Muduli,
                    Advocate(Informant)

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:08.07.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2)

of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act,

2016 (in short, “the Act”) in nature of bail is directed

against the order dated 14.05.2025 passed in

CT(Special) Case No.525 of 2025 by which the learned

Special Judge, Chandikhole has refused to release the

appellant on bail in connection with Jenapur PS Case

No. 111 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable

under Sections 126(2)/ 296/ 115(2)/ 303(2)/ 308(2)/
CRLA No.625 of 2025 Page 1 of 5
351(2)/3(5) of BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act

read with Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Act,

on the main allegation of demanding money from the

informant and assaulting him along with co-accused

persons by taking advantage of the caste of the

informant.

2. Heard, Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena, learned

counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Pravat Kumar

Muduli, learned counsel for the Informant in the matter

and perused the record. The informant and the State

mainly oppose the bail application of the appellant for

violation of the condition no. (III) of the order dated

07.04.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in ABLAPL No. 3744 of 2025 and his subsequently

involvement in other criminal cases.

2.1. In addressing the rival submissions, when

a question is posed to Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP,

he candidly replies that except the complainant, the

other witnesses so far examined has not supported the

allegation against the appellant. Further, the statement

of the complainant does not reveal any injury to him.
CRLA No.625 of 2025 Page 2 of 5
2.2. In opposing the prayer of the appellant,

Mr. Muduli, learned counsel for the Informant, however,

by placing reliance to the decision in State of Haryana

Vrs. Dharamraj; AIR Online 2023 SC 887 submits

that while considering a bail application, the Court has

to apply its mind to the character, behavior, means,

position and standing of the accused, but since the

appellant herein is involved in other cases and he

having violated the condition of the order passed in

ABLAPL No. 3744 of 2025, he should not be granted

bail. It is, however, not in dispute that that the

appellant is having some political background and he is

being implicated in some cases, however, in the

present case, except the complainant, some of the

witnesses have not supported the allegation and the

informant has not sustained any kind of injuries,

although there is allegation against the appellant for

assaulting the informant. Besides, the appellant is in

custody since 14.05.2025. True it is that, there is

allegation against the appellant for violating the

condition stated supra, but the condition as imposed

only states that the appellant shall not involve himself
CRLA No.625 of 2025 Page 3 of 5
in similar or any type of offence during currency of the

order, however, the appellant was involved or not in

similar type of offence or any other offence can only be

ascertained after he faces the trial in this case or if

there appears some prima facie accusations to presume

that the accused got himself involved in other cases,

the Court can evaluate the violation of condition by the

accused, but merely because some cases have been

registered against the accused, it cannot be said that

the accused has violated the condition, otherwise the

person who are inimically disposed of or aggrieved by

the person accused of offence, can also manage to

register case(s) which need(s) to be investigated.

3. Further, the classic right an accused has

got is his presumption of innocence and such right can

be effectuated by granting bail to a person accused of

offence by taking some surety, unless the allegation is

heinous, serious and the materials on record prima

facie disclose the involvement of the accused in such

cases. It is also not in dispute that bail is the rule, but

jail is the exception and a person cannot be put behind

bar for indefinite period, merely because case(s)
CRLA No.625 of 2025 Page 4 of 5
has/have been registered against him, of course a

person can be taken into custody in accordance with

the procedure established by law. In view of the above

facts and after having considered the rival submissions

and on going through the materials placed on record,

this Court without expressing any view on merits

considers it proper to admit the appellant to bail.

4. Hence, the CRLA stands allowed and the

impugned order is hereby quashed/set aside.

Consequently, the appellant be released on bail on such

terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by the

learned Court in seisin over the matter.

5. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as

per Rules.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 8th July, 2025/Priyajit

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 09-Jul-2025 17:54:49

CRLA No.625 of 2025 Page 5 of 5