Orissa High Court
ABLAPL/9379/2026 of RAJU MAHANANDA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 17 August 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 9379 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010605142026 Raju Mahananda …. Petitioner Mr. B. K. Ragada, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. A . K. Pati, ASC ABLAPL No. 6809 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010437912026 Binaya Kumar Tanti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 9379 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010605142026
Raju Mahananda
….
Petitioner
Mr. B. K. Ragada, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha
….
Opposite Party
Mr. A. K. Pati, ASC
ABLAPL No. 6809 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010437912026
Binaya Kumar Tanti
….
Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha
….
Opposite Party
Mr. A. K. Pati, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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
17.08.2026
01.
1. Since both the ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, on the consent of the parties, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.520 of 2026 pending on the file of learned 2nd J.M.F.C and SDJM, Sambalpur respectively, arising out of Sambalpur Sadar P.S. Case No.170 of 2026 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 140(3) and 310(2) of the BNS.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioners have no criminal proclivities and they have been falsely implicated in the case at hand. Hence, they may be protected by pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail referring to the statements of the five accused persons, who have been taken into custody.
6. This Court perused the statement of the accused.
7. It is trite that during the consideration of pre- arrest/post-arrest bail, there is no embargo for this Court to consider the complicity of the Petitioners on the basis of the co-accused statement. Reference in this regard can be gainfully made through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 921 which has stood the test of time.
8. Taking into account the nature of allegations and the statements of the accused persons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail.
9. The ABLAPLs are accordingly disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Jina Digitally Signed Signed by: JINA DIGAL Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Aug-2026 20:16:42 Signature Not Verified