BLAPL/5572/2026 of KUNJAM HIDMA @ MOHAN Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 1 September 2026

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Baipariguda PS Case No.111 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.579 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Koraput for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147/148/109(1)/61(2) of B.N.S r/w Sec.27 of Arms Act and 04 of Explosive Substances Act and Sec.17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.

2. The allegation against the petitioner in gist is that the petitioner being a member of Andhra-Odisha Border Maoist organization had opened fired to the police party, along with other persons and he was apprehended from the spot with huge incriminating materials like Arms and ammunitions and several communication articles.

3. Heard Mr. Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner was found from the spot, along with AK-47 rifle loaded with magazine and the petitioner has previous criminal antecedents in following five cases: -

(i) Baipariguda PS Case No.40 of 2017 for commission of offence U/S.120/121(A)/307 of IPC r/w Sec.16(1)(b)/18(a)/20 of UAP Act and 25/27 of Arms Act;

(ii) Boipariguda PS Case No.145 of for commission of offence U/S.143/120-B/121/121-A/149 of IPC r/w Sec.10/18/20 of UAP Act and Sec.25/27 of Arms Act;

(iii) Mathili PS Case No.144 of 2021 for commission of offence U/S.147/148/121/121-A/307/149 of IPC r/w Sec.25/27 of Arms Act/ Cr.LA Act/13/18/20 of UAP Act;

(iv) Mathili PS Case No.155 of 2021 for commission of offence U/S.120-B/ 121/ 121-A/ 124/ 124-A/ 307/ 147/ 148/ 149 of IPC r/w Sec.25/27 of Arms Act/17 Cr. L.A Act/16(1)(b)/18/20 of UAP Act;

(v) Mathili PS Case No.159 of 2021 for commission of offence U/S.147/148/121/121-A/307/149 of IPC r/w Sec.25/27 of Arms Act/17 Cr. L.A Act/13/18/20 of UAP Act.

It, however, appears from the record that the petitioner has not disclosed his criminal antecedents in this bail application, but the forwarding report clearly suggest that the petitioner is having five criminal antecedents and the same are under different Sections of UAP Act and other allied offences. In the context of suppression of material facts, this Court it relevant to refer to the decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein the Apex Court at Paragraph 9 of the decision has held as under: - “9. xx xx xx, since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. xx xx”.

5. In the aforesaid premises and on consideration of materials placed on record together with suppression of criminal antecedent by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment may immediately be transmitted to the Court concerned.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 01st Day of September, 2026/ Jayakrushna Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIgh Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2026 19:13:33 Signature Not Verified