Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy has declined to release two accused, popularly referred to as the Dhalasamanta brothers, on bail in a case alleging demands for extortion money and the recovery of firearms and live ammunition from their residence without lawful authority. The Court refused relief and dismissed the bail application, noting that the materials on record disclosed a prima facie case and that the question of applicability of the arms-related charge was to be examined at trial. In rejecting the request, the Bench also took into account the accused persons’ prior convictions and multiple reported criminal antecedents, observing that such history cannot be treated lightly and has a definite impact on society.

The case arose from an application seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with allegations of extortion and illegal possession of firearms and live ammunition. The prosecution case was that the accused were involved in demanding extortion money and were found in possession of arms and ammunition at their residence. The offences invoked included provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to extortion and criminal conspiracy, along with multiple provisions of the Arms Act.

Also Read: BCI Disciplinary Committee Cannot Impose Penalty After Client Withdraws Complaint And Expresses Satisfaction: Supreme Court

During the hearing, the petitioners contended that the seizure forming the basis of the prosecution had been made in a different police station case and that the present proceedings were therefore not maintainable. It was also argued, relying on a forensic report, that the seized weapon did not fall within the category of an unauthorised arm so as to attract the aggravated provision under the Arms Act. The petitioners further relied on the length of custody already undergone as a ground for bail.

The State opposed the application, submitting that the petitioners were history-sheeters with prior convictions, including convictions under the Arms Act. It was argued that the punishment prescribed for the alleged offence was severe and that, in view of statutory provisions governing repeat offenders, the petitioners were not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.

The Court observed that “there appears allegation against the petitioners for possessing arms and live ammunitions”. It recorded that the certified copies of depositions of P.Ws.3 and 5, who were police personnel, revealed that “the aforesaid two witnesses deposing against the petitioners by supporting the prosecution allegation”.

The Court noted that it was “not in dispute that petitioner no.1… has been convicted in two criminal cases” and that he had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years in one case and five years in another. With respect to the second petitioner, the Court recorded that “the comprehensive affidavit filed by petitioner no.2… reveals about his conviction in one criminal case with sentence to undergo imprisonment for seven years therein”. It further observed that “there are series of criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners”.

The Court stated that while principles governing grant of bail have been laid down in several decisions, “the criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be brushed lightly as it has got definite impact on the society”. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court, the Court recorded the extract that “when a stand was taken that the 2nd respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinize every aspect” and that granting bail without such scrutiny would amount to “non-application of mind”.

The Court recorded the statutory bar under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and noted that “such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted” of serious offences, subject only to limited exceptions. It further noted the statutory consequence under the Arms Act that “whoever having been convicted of an offence under this Act is again convicted of an offence under this Act shall be punishable with double the penalty provided for the latter offence”.

Addressing the contention that the offence under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act was not made out, the Court stated that “such plea has to be decided by the learned trial Court after evidence is being led”. It observed that “in a bail proceeding, this Court does not consider it advisable or desirable to accept such plea at this stage” and further recorded that “after going through the materials placed on record together with the evidence of the witnesses as produced, this Court does not consider it proper to opine that the offence… is not made out”.

On the argument of prolonged custody, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedent and recorded that “when the seriousness of the offence is such, the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts”.

Also Read: Measures To Curb Population Growth Far From Satisfactory; Policies Needed On War Footing: Orissa High Court

The Court directed that “this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The bail application of the petitioners stand rejected. The BLAPL stands disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. C. Samantaray, Advocate; Mr. S. K. Patra, Advocate; Mr. S. Biswal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. P. S. Nayak, Special Counsel

Case Title: Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta v. State of Odisha
Case Number: BLAPL No. 6805 of 2025
Bench: Justice G. Satapathy