Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy on January 6, 2026 declined bail to five accused alleged to have sold or supplied spurious liquor in the K. Nuagaon area of Ganjam district, while granting bail to a sixth accused alleged to have assisted as a village headman. The case concerns an August 2024 incident in which more than a dozen villagers were hospitalized after consuming liquor allegedly sold without authority, and five persons later died. The prosecution relied on reports indicating ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate in seized liquor samples. The Court said the immediate focus was the reported deaths and illnesses linked to the liquor and the allegations of unauthorized sale or supply.

The matter arose from multiple bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by several accused persons in connection with a police case relating to the alleged sale and supply of spurious liquor. The prosecution case originated from an FIR lodged by a police officer who received information that several villagers from different villages were admitted to a community health centre after consuming liquor allegedly purchased from certain accused persons. The affected individuals reportedly experienced severe physical symptoms and were later referred to a medical college hospital for advanced treatment.

Also Read: No Re-Notification Needed For Vijayawada ACB To Operate As A Police Station After Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation; Supreme Court Restores FIRs Quashed For Lack Of Jurisdiction

During the course of investigation, five individuals succumbed after consuming the liquor. The police alleged that some of the accused were involved in selling illicit liquor without any authority, while others were accused of manufacturing or supplying the liquor. It was further alleged that chemical substances were detected in samples of seized liquor and that fertiliser materials were recovered from certain premises.

The accused persons sought bail contending that forensic reports did not conclusively establish death due to liquor consumption and that they had no role in the alleged offence. The State opposed the bail applications, citing the gravity of the offence, the number of deaths, medical opinions, and alleged recovery of substances from the accused persons’ premises.

The Court observed that “the statutory provisions of bail confers wide discretion on the Court either to grant or refuse bail to the applicant, but such exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary or de hors the basic principles laid down by different constitutional Courts.”

Referring to settled principles, the Court recorded that “detail analysis of evidence and meticulous examination of documents on merit should be avoided at the time of consideration of bail.” It further stated that “at the first instance, the Court has the duty to consider prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the serious allegations levelled against the accused constitute the commission of offences or not.”

On the factual matrix, the Court noted that “it is disclosed in the charge-sheet that the deceased persons had been admitted to hospital after consuming liquor stated to be spurious by purchasing it from some of the petitioners and eventually losing their lives.” It also recorded that “the gravity of accusations is evident from the death of five innocent persons in this case.”

While noticing the submissions regarding forensic reports, the Court stated that “this Court does not consider it proper to enter into the arena of analysis of the reports submitted by the CFSL… together with the opinion of the doctor at this stage, which is impermissible at the time of consideration of bail.” The Court clarified that “what is relevant at this stage is that five persons suffered death and some persons suffered illness after consuming liquor sold by the co-accused persons.”

With respect to one accused, the Court observed that “there is no direct allegation against him for selling any liquor to the villagers” and further recorded that “the only allegation against him for assisting co-accused in selling the liquor is not being clarified as to the manner in which he was assisting.”

Also Read: Civil Courts Can Order Police Aid Under Section 151 CPC To Enforce Injunctions : Orissa High Court

The Court directed that “the bail application of the petitioner Balaram Bisoyi… stands allowed and he be allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case.”

“The petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear… the learned trial Court may proceed against the petitioner for offence under Section 269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law. This Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to rest of the petitioners.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. B.K. Raj, Advocate; Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate; Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate; Mr. S.K. Pradhan, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. M.R. Patra, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @ Pabana Sahu & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Case Numbers: BLAPL Nos. 9883, 9885, 12570 of 2024 & 3926, 3948, 4553 of 2025
Bench: Justice G. Satapathy