ABLAPL/506/2025 of SOUMYA SANKAR CHAKRA@RAJA@SOMUYA RANJAN CHAKRA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 31 August 2026

ORDER

31.08.2026

03. 1. Heard Mr.Subir Palit, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner along with Mr.Adhiraj Mohanty, learned counsel and learned counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.54 of 2025, arising out Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.18 of 2025 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar.

3. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel that ex facie exaggerated allegations have been made in respect of the offence under section 109 of the BNS and in fact to wriggle out of the counter FIR, which is registered as Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.17 of 2025.

4. The attention of this Court is drawn to the recitals of the said FIR and referring to the same, it is submitted that in fact it is the Petitioner No.2, who had sustained injuries and on extraneous consideration, instead of taking any action on the FIR instituted at the behest of the Petitioners, the police are trying to take the present Petitioners into custody, an extraneous consideration on account of his political affiliation.

5. It is his further submission that in the case at hand, since charge-sheet having been filed, the Petitioners may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand referring to the objection affidavit at Flag-D, opposes the prayer for bail, though it is fairly stated that so far as the allegation qua under section 109 of BNS is concerned, the injuries are simple.

7. It is stated that the Petitioners are cited as accused in the following cases: “Petitioner No.1-Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja I) Daitari PS case No.14 of 2004 under sections 294/506/34 of the IPC read with section 3(1) SC & ST (POA) Act;

II) Keonjhar Town PS case No-122 of 2005 under sections 341/147/148/149/294/379/307 IPC; III) Keonjhar Town PS Case No.71 of 2010 under sections 341/332/506/34 of the IPC. IV) Keonjhar Town PS case No-192 dtd 12.09.2012, U/S-147/336/427/149 IPC sec 3 of the PDPP Act 1984. V) Keonjhar Town PS case No-193, dtd 12.09.2012, U/S-147/336/427/149 IPC sec 3 of the PDPP Act,

VI) Keonjhar Town PS case No- 194, dtd 12.09.2012, U/S-147/336/427/149 IPC,r/w-sec 3 of PDPP Act 1984 VII). Keonjhar Town PS case No- 195, dtd 12.09.2012, U/S-147/448/353/336/427/435/149 IPC,r/w- sec 3 of PDPP Act 1984 VIII) Pandapada PS case no- 65/2014, U/S- 341/294/323/379/506/34 IPC IX) Keonjhar Town PS case no- 341/379/385/307/506/34 IPC. 99/2019, U/S- X) Keonjhar Sadar PS casc no- 189/2021, U/S- 341/294/506/34 IPC. XI). Keonjhar Town PS case no 308 dtd 18.08.2024, U/S-363/341/506/34 IPC XII). Keonjhar Town PS case No- 17, dtd

U/S- 126(2)/115(2)/296/351(3)/303(2)/3(5) BNS XIII). Keonjhar Town PS case no- dtd 08.01.2025, U/s.126(2)/109(1)/310(2)/115(2)/351(2)/296/3 (5) BNS XIV). Bhubaneswar EOW PS Case No. 03, Dated 07.02.2025,U/S.406/409/420/467/468/471/120 (B) IPC Petitioner No.2 Sidhartha Sankar Chakra @ Likun @ Lipun Chakra:-

I). Pandapada POA Act. PS Case No 98/2020, U/S- 294/323/341/427/506/34 IPC, r/w Sec. 3(1) SC and ST II).Keonjhar Town PS case по- 228/2017, U/S 468/471/420/120-B/34 IPC III). Keonjhar Town PS case No- 17, dtd 08.01.2025, U/S- 126(2)/115(2)/296/351(3)/303(2)/3(5) BNS IV).Keonjhar Town PS case no 18 dtd 08.01.2025, U/s-126(2)/109(1)/310(2)/115(2)/351(2)/296/3(5) BNS Petitioner No.3 Sunil Kumar Barik @ Sunil: I). Keonjhar Town PS Case No.191/2015, U/S- 341/294/323/506/34 IPC II). Keonjhar Town PS Case No. 45/2020, U/S- 341/294/323/506/34 IPC III). Keonjhar Town PS Case No.179/2024,U/S- 143/149/186/341/506 IPC IV) Nayakote PS Case No. 72/2022, U/S- 147/148/149/294/323/380/427/435/506 IPC/ r/w Sec. 04 Public Property Prevention of Damage Act. V) Keonjhar Town PS case No- 17, dtd 08.01.2025, U/S-126(2)/115(2)/296/351(3)/303(2)/3(5) BNS VI) Keonjhar Town PS case no- 18 dtd 08.01.2025, U/s-126(2)/109(1)/310(2)/115(2)/351(2)/296/3(5) BNS”

8. So far as antecedents are concerned, law is no longer res integra. The Apex Court, in the case of Ankit Mishra v. State of M.P; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 809 has clarified that though the antecedents cannot be ignored, the same cannot be the sole ground to deprive an accused from consideration of his application for pre-arrest bail on merits. This

Court respectfully observes that circumscribing the powers conferred on this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail, cannot be curtailed only on account of antecedents. That will be against the schematic arrangement of pre-arrest bail, which, though not a fundamental right, has been held to be inviolable right of an accused and the same has to be considered in the light of the latest dictum of Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452 wherein law has been set at rest that pre-arrest bail is nothing but a specie of post-arrest bail and all the grounds which are germane for adjudication of a post-arrest bail applies in equal measure for consideration of a pre-arrest bail.

The rival contentions of the parties are to be tested on the anvil of the judgments referred to hereinabove.

9. Considering the rival submission, taking into account that charge-sheet has already been filed and ex facie no allegation has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioners had tried to meddle with the investigation or that there is any chance of absconding, this Court feels that prayer for pre-arrest bail merits consideration.

10. Accordingly, it directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioners shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper.

11. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge Basu Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 02-Sep-2026 18:05:55 Signature Not Verified