Orissa High Court
ABLAPL/9199/2026 of SATYA MALLIK @ SATYABRAT MALLIK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 18 August 2026
of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 9199 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010590472026 1. Satya Mallik @ Satyabrat Mallik 2. Chinka Mallik @ Sridhar Mallik 3. Bapuni Gouda 4. Suman Pradhan @ Suman Pahan 5. Babu Pahan @ Babula Pahan 6. Ranjan Jena 7. Badal Gouda 8. Bachan Nahak @ Bachal Nahak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 9199 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010590472026
1. Satya Mallik @
Satyabrat Mallik
2. Chinka Mallik @
Sridhar Mallik
3. Bapuni Gouda
4. Suman Pradhan @
Suman Pahan
5. Babu Pahan @
Babula Pahan
6. Ranjan Jena
7. Badal Gouda
8. Bachan Nahak @
Bachal Nahak
….
Petitioners
Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha
….
Opposite Party
Mr. S.K. Lenka, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
18.08.2026
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with S.T. Case No.111 of 2025 pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khallikote, Ganjam, arising out of Khallikote P.S. Case No.482 of
2025 for commission of offences punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS.
3. Admittedly, the present Petitioners, are the named accused, for allegedly causing death of one Basant Pahan.
4. After investigation while filing the charge sheet, the investigating agency only filed charge sheet against one sole accused Nageswar Duhudi.
5. During the course of examination of witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2, namely, Sambhu Kishore Pradhan and Sudarshan Pradhan, the complicity of the present Petitioners having come to the fore summon has been issued to the present Petitioners and apprehending arrest pursuant thereto, the present Petitioners have approached this Court.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Tripathy, that it’s a case of exaggeration at the time of trial and false implication and in this context, he refers to the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of both the P.Ws in which, there is no whisper about the involvement of the present Petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that since prima facie materials have come to the fore during the ongoing trial, the
Petitioners being accused of commission of offence under Section 103 BNS, no leniency ought to be shown and merely because there has been lapse during investigation, that ought not to weigh with this Court in considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail particularly in a case of this nature.
8. This court perused the 164 Cr.P.C statement relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioners.
On perusal of the same, it is seen that there is no mention of the role ascribed to the present Petitioners.
9. This Court also perused the P.M. report of the injured in which the external injuries have been noted as under; “External Injuries
1. Spindle shape penetrating wound obliquely predisposed of size 4.5*1.5cm with tailing towards up, present over lateral side of posterior trunk 4cm below angle of left scapula with soft tissues bevelled downwards.
2. Spindle shape penetrating injury showing impression of hilt just left lateral to spine present one end of which is 24cm below the nape of neck, then passing obliquely upwards of about 5.5cm with gaping of 2.5cm with tailing on left lateral side.”
10. In the inquest report, name of the principal accused, who is in custody, is mentioned though it is also stated that others are involved.
11. This Court further perused the statement of the principal accused under Section 23 of the Evidence Act leading to discovery of the alleged weapon of offence, in which the P.Ws. 1 and 2 were cited as witnesses.
12. Learned counsel for the State further submits that Petitioner Nos.1,2, 4 and 8 have antecedents.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that only because of antecedents, prayer of the Petitioners for pre-arrest bail cannot be rejected since their accusation vis-à- vis case at hand has to be independently gone into.
14. This Court finds substances in such submission.
15. On a conspectus of the evidence as well as materials on record, this Court is persuaded to hold that the Petitioners have been able to prima facie establish that their names cropping up at the stage of trial is a super addition and as such their incarceration is not warranted.
16. Hence, this Court directs 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.
17. Additionally, it is directed that Petitioners shall appear before the learned Court in seisin on the date fixed and they shall appear unless their present is dispensed with.
18. It is needless to state that observations made herein are only for the purpose of considering the application for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioner and that ought not to be understood as this Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioner which has to be gone into in an independent manner in an ongoing probe.
19. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
20. U.C.C. as per rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Santoshi
Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Aug-2026 18:40:55 Signature Not Verified