BUDDHADEV BISWAL v. STATE OF ODISHA
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2026-04-30. BUDDHADEV BISWAL v. STATE OF ODISHA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 1858 of 2026 Buddhadev Biswal and …. Petitioner(s) another Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party(s) Mr. P. S. Nayak, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order ORDER No. 30. 04. 2026 02. 1. The petitioners are accused in connection with Patnagarh P. S. Case No. 139 of 2022 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 521 of 2022 registered on the allegation of the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 395/120-B of IPC read with 25/27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of the SDJM, Patnagarh. 2. The petitioners had approached the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Patnagarh in BLAPL No. 13 of 2026 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 03. 02. 2026 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for enlargement on bail. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction from the petitioners, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioners is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F. I. R. 4. The petitioner no. 1 has moved an interim application being I. A. No. 261 of 2026 for interim bail on health ground. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 21. 04. 2026, the State Counsel verified the authenticity of the documents enclosed to the interim application and filed a report dated 28. 04. 2026, inter alia, stating that the jail authorities are taking adequate care for the treatment of the petitioner no. 1 and there is no alarming physical ailment of the petitioner no. 1 for which interim bail would be granted. 6. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the State further submits that although the petitioner no. 1 disclosed that he has five criminal antecedents, but from verification it is found that there are 21 criminal cases pending against petitioner no. 1.
In so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, although he has disclosed that he has two criminal antecedents, but from verification it is found that he has three criminal antecedents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the co-accused persons have already admitted to regular bail. 8. Regard being had to the aforementioned, I am not inclined to entertain this application. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to renew the bail plea before the learned trial court urging the ground of parity. If such application is filed, the same shall be considered by the learned trial court on its own merit. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the BLAPL is disposed of. (S. S. Mishra) Judge Ashok
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.