Orissa High Court: While considering a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’), a Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., observed that the petitioners, who were facing trial for offences under Sections 386, 387, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), and 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) were not entitled to bail in view of their previous convictions and criminal antecedents. The Court emphasised that such criminal antecedents in bail matters cannot be brushed aside lightly, as they have a definite impact on society, and held that the gravity of the offence under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act warranted rejection of the bail application.
Background:
The matter arose from allegations of demanding extortion money and possessing unauthorized firearms and live ammunition. The petitioners submitted that the seizure had been made in a different police case and, therefore, the present case was not maintainable. It was further contended, relying on the forensic report, that the weapon seized was not unauthorised and hence Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act was not attracted. They urged that the petitioners had already been detained for a substantial period of ten years and should be granted bail.
On the other hand, the State opposed the bail application, contending that the petitioners were history-sheeters with past convictions. It was argued that the punishment prescribed under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act is not less than ten years and may extend to life imprisonment, and that, in view of Section 31 of the Arms Act, the punishment may be doubled for subsequent convictions. Therefore, the bail application was sought to be rejected.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court, after considering the rival submissions and perusal of the records, observed that there appeared allegations of possessing arms and live ammunitions supported by depositions of police witnesses. It was noted that the petitioners had already been convicted in multiple criminal cases and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from five to seven years, besides having a series of criminal antecedents. The Court emphasised that criminal antecedents cannot be brushed lightly as they have a definite impact on society, and referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 which held that granting bail to a history-sheeter without proper scrutiny would amount to travesty of justice.
The Court highlighted Section 480(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), which prescribes that persons previously convicted of offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for seven years or more shall not be released. The Court also noted Section 31 of the Arms Act, which provides for a double penalty in cases of subsequent offences. The Court further observed that Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act prescribes a punishment of not less than ten years and up to life imprisonment, and that the plea regarding the non-applicability of this section must be decided at trial, not at the bail stage.
The Court also noted that the plea of long custody was advanced, but relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 which held 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.
In view of the above facts, previous convictions, and chequered criminal history, the Court concluded that it was not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, the bail application stood rejected.
[Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta v. State of Orissa, BLAPL No. 6805 of 2025, decided on 29-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioners: C. Samantaray, S.K. Patra & S. Biswal, Advocates
For State: P.S. Nayak, Special Counsel
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
