Orissa High Court Upholds Presumption of Innocence Over Bail Rejection

The Orissa High Court has ruled that an accused's inherent right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must not be eclipsed by the gravity of allegations, especially when no specific role is attributed to them. The Bench underscored that bail serves as a guarantee for trial attendance rather than a punitive measure, thereby setting aside an order that had refused liberty to individuals facing murder charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the BNS.

Justice G. Satapathy adjudicated upon a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants challenged an order of the Special Court (SC & ST), Cuttack, which had denied them bail in a case involving the tragic death of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste during a religious procession. While the prosecution alleged a collective assault, the Orissa High Court focused on the individualized roles and the stage of the trial to determine the necessity of continued incarceration.

Judicial Analysis of Evidence and Custody

The appellants' counsel argued that the witnesses' depositions were highly discrepant, with some witnesses exonerating the appellants entirely. It was pointed out that the fatal stab injury mentioned in the post-mortem report was specifically attributed to a co-accused, not the present appellants. The Orissa High Court noted that the appellants had been in custody since late 2024 and that the material witnesses had already testified, leaving little room for witness interference.

Contrary to the prosecution's claim that the appellants stood on the same footing as a co-accused whose bail was previously rejected in Santosh Behera v. State of Odisha, the Orissa High Court observed that the allegations against the current appellants were largely "omnibus in nature."

Bail a Temporary Release

The Orissa High Court while allowing the instant bail application observed that "...granting bail to an accused is temporary release of accused from custody on his assurance to attend the trial by binding himself with surety, who guarantees the presence of accused at the trial. There are other charge sheeted witnesses who are yet to be examined and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In the aforesaid premises and on consideration of materials placed on record keeping in view the evidence of witnesses so far examined and no material being collected to suggest that the Appellants would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if released on bail, this Court without expressing any view on merit considers it proper to admit the Appellants to bail."

Background

The case originated from an incident during a Lord Ganesh immersion procession where a scuffle led to the death of Suryakanta Samal and injuries to others. The appellants were charged under various sections of the BNS and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution argued that the victims were abused based on their caste and assaulted with sharp weapons. However, the High Court found that the specific fatal act of stabbing was directed at co-accused Deepak Behera and Santosh Behera. Recognizing that the trial was not likely to conclude soon and that the appellants had already spent considerable time in custody, the Orissa High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's refusal to grant bail.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRLA No.117 of 2025
Case Title: Bibhu @ Prabhudutta Parida and another v. State of Odisha
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.C. Mahapatra, Sr. Advocate; Mr. P. Mohapatra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP; Mr. A.C. Behera, Advocate (informant)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ORI) 1583