BLAPL/5984/2026 of TRILOCHAN PRADHAN 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 Talcher P.S. Case No.506 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No.864 of 2026 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Talcher, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 318(4)/319(2)/336(2)/336(3)/338/340(2)/61(2) of BNS, on the main allegation of getting the land of the real owner sold to his(petitioner) son and relatives by impersonating him as one of the co-sharers of the land and by forging documents and signatures of the co- sharers and in the process, trying to cheat the informant-cum-real owner by grabbing his landed property whose market value is Rs.9.96Lakhs as per the Government rate.

2. Heard Mr. Jugal Kishore Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP and Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Parida, learned counsel for the informant in the matter and perused the record.

3. Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Parida, learned counsel for the informant, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter alia that the petitioner has not only tried to grab the land of the informant, but he has manipulated and forged the documents to get the land sold in the name of his son and others by impersonating him and his brother as the owners of the land, but fortunately, although the informant has not been dispossessed of the land, the sale deed stares at the informant for having potential to be sold to other persons because it is a valuable land and coming under Rungta Mines area. Further, Mr. Parida submits that the petitioner is having one criminal antecedent, but he has not disclosed such antecedent in his bail application. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Parida prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Jugal Kishore Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner volunteers to withhold bail to the petitioner, if he is found to have any criminal antecedent, beside this case.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for getting the sale deed executed in the name of his son and others by impersonating him as the co-sharer of the land, but the petitioner is in custody since 01.05.2026 and in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted. It appears from the submission made for the informant that the informant has not yet been dispossessed of the land. Besides, whatever is alleged, it is allegation against the petitioner only, but the same is subject to proof in the trial. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is aged about 63 years and he is in custody, but after submission of charge sheet, there is no requirement of any custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Grant of bail should not be confused with the acquittal of an accused, but it is a guarantee given by the accused to appear before the Court at the trial by binding himself for the bail amount with guarantee of surety. Law is also equally well settled that presumption of innocence is an inbuilt right associated with the accused and that is the precise reason for which bail is the rule, but jail is the exception.

5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and on consideration of materials placed on record together with the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety including the inherent right of the accused- petitioner to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and there being no criminal antecedent reported against the petitioner and lastly, no material being collected to suggest that the petitioner would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if released on bail and all the offences being triable by Magistrate and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2022) 10 SCC 51, this Court without expressing any view on merits, admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to verification of his criminal antecedent.

6. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed and the Petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall cooperate with the further investigation, if any &

(ii) the petitioner shall not threaten, induce, influence or coerce any of the witnesses including the family members of the informant acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court.

In view of the specific submission as advanced for the petitioner, the benefit of this order shall not be extended to him, if he is found to have any criminal antecedent or has been implicated in any other criminal case.

7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 1st day of September, 2026/S.Sasmal Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Sep-2026 18:59:49 Signature Not Verified