Orissa High Court Denies Bail to College Principal and HOD in Student Self-Immolation Case, Grants Relief to Two Students
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Orissa, Single Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, on Wednesday (October 22), rejected the bail pleas of the Head of the Department of Teacher’s Education and the Principal of Fakir Mohan Autonomous College, Balasore, for their alleged involvement in the death of a female undergraduate student who set herself ablaze on the college campus in July. The Court, acknowledging the gravity of the incident, observed that despite existing legal and institutional safeguards, societal and administrative failures had led to the loss of a young life. At the same time, the Bench granted conditional bail to two student petitioners while allowing the main accused to renew their pleas after the charge sheet is filed.
The case arose from an incident at Fakir Mohan Autonomous College, Balasore, where a 20-year-old undergraduate student allegedly set herself on fire on July 12, 2025, following accusations of harassment by a senior faculty member. The First Information Report was lodged by the victim’s cousin, alleging that the Head of the Department of Teacher’s Education had demanded sexual favours and, upon refusal, subjected the student to continuous mental harassment. The complaint further stated that despite a written grievance to the Principal, no remedial steps were taken, and the college authorities allegedly intimidated the student into withdrawing her complaint. The victim later succumbed to her injuries while undergoing treatment at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar.
Following the registration of the case at Sahadevkhunta Police Station, the accused faculty member, the Principal, and two student associates were arrested under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 75(1)(ii), 78(2), 79, 351(2), 108, and 3(5). The investigation was subsequently transferred to the Crime Branch owing to the seriousness of the offence.
During the hearing, counsel for the faculty member argued that the accused had no connection to the victim’s suicide and claimed the incident stemmed from political disputes in the student union. The Principal’s counsel contended that an Internal Complaint Committee had been constituted and that its report found no evidence of sexual harassment, asserting procedural compliance under Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Article 22 of the Constitution concerning communication of arrest grounds.
The two student petitioners maintained that they were not named in the FIR, were only indirectly connected as members of the student organisation, and had no role in instigation. The prosecution opposed the bail pleas, emphasizing the gravity of the offence, the public uproar, and the ongoing investigation by the Crime Branch, asserting that custodial interrogation remained necessary.
The Court recorded that the case presented “one of the most shocking incidents that have taken place in the recent past,” adding that “such incident has shocked the conscience of the people of the State of Odisha.” The Court observed that the tragedy reflected systemic and societal failures: “It is not very difficult to understand the genesis of the thought-process which led to such a drastic step being taken by a young girl student; it is out and out the hierarchy of the college administration and that inaction towards the harassment complained by the victim.”
The judgment expressed anguish over institutional apathy: “Although several laws have been enacted and several steps have been taken by the judiciary as well as the administrative machineries to prevent such kind of occurrences, this Court painstakingly notes here that all such steps have gone in vain and that the society has collectively failed to save the life of a young girl.”
The Court found due compliance: “At Sl. No.10 under the heading ‘Reasons/Grounds of Arrest,’ it has been clearly mentioned as prima facie evidence under Sections 75(1)(ii), 78(2), 79, 351(2), 108, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.” Justice Mohapatra concluded, “This Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the learned SDJM, Balasore as well as learned Sessions Judge, Balasore have not committed any illegality in coming to a conclusion that the statutory requirement of Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 as well as the enshrined principle of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been duly followed.”
The Court held that “since this Court finds no infringement in compliance, the arrest/detention in custody cannot be held to be arbitrary.”
It noted that “both the Petitioners were not named in the F.I.R initially and that the informant has not alleged any specific role which has been played by these two petitioners in the alleged crime.” The Court found that the allegations against Nayak and Biswal were limited to circumstantial involvement and that they were young students with fixed local addresses. It observed, “Taking into consideration the nature of the allegation against both the afore-named Petitioners, further keeping in view their age and the fact that they are students, that they belong to the locality and there is no chance of them absconding, this Court is inclined to release both the afore-mentioned Petitioners on bail conditionally.”
In conclusion, Justice Mohapatra directed that Subhra Sambit Nayak and Jyotiprakash Biswal be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two local solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court ordered that “the release of the abovenamed two Petitioners shall be subject to such other terms and condition as would be deemed just and proper by the court in seisin over the matter.” The Court preserved the right of the prosecution to seek cancellation of their bail if new incriminating material emerges during investigation.
Conversely, bail applications of Samira Kumar Sahoo and Dillip Kumar Ghose were rejected. The Court held: “This Court is not inclined to consider their bail applications as the investigation is still in progress. While rejecting their bail applications at this stage, this Court grants them a right to renew their prayers after filing of the final charge-sheet by the Crime Branch.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: M/s. Bijaya Kumar Behera, Adv.; Mr. P.K. Parhi, Adv. with Mr. P.K. Mishra, Mr. B. Parhi, Mr. S. Suman; Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Adv. with Mr. A. Ray, Adv.
For the Respondent (State): Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Additional Government Advocate.
Case Title: Samira Kumar Sahoo & Others v. State of Odisha
Case Numbers: BLAPL Nos. 9219, 9241, 9242, and 9739 of 2025
Bench: Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
