Orissa High Court: In an application seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 353, 196 and 356, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of V. Narasingh, J., held that, considering the materials on record and perusal of the statement of the correspondent working under the petitioner, recorded under Section 183, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and other statements, the Court was not inclined to entertain the application for the exceptional remedy of pre-arrest bail. The Court accordingly rejected the application, while clarifying that its observations were only for the purpose of considering the bail application and would not be construed as expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the petitioner.
Background
The dispute arose from an application seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with a criminal case pending before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR, was that during an Odisha Swabhiman Mancha programme on 12 July 2026, the petitioner, Editor-in-Chief of a media organisation, allegedly falsely claimed that a minister had attempted to bribe him to suppress reports regarding alleged textbook errors. The video containing the allegations was thereafter uploaded and widely circulated on Facebook and other social media platforms.
The complainant alleged that the statements were false, fabricated, malicious and defamatory and that they were intentionally published to tarnish the minister’s reputation, create distrust against the Government and mislead the public. It was further alleged that circulation of the video had caused significant reputational harm and might disturb public order and confidence in the Government. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered the case for offences punishable under Sections 353, 196 and 356 BNS.
The petitioner contended that even if the entire allegations were accepted at their face value, custodial interrogation was not warranted and therefore he may be protected by pre-arrest bail. It was further submitted that because of the criminal antecedents, the petitioner was an easy prey and that the same ought not to weigh with the Court in considering the allegations, which were ex facie improbable. The petitioner also submitted that some of the co-accused who had been taken into custody had since been released on bail.
The State opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail and referred to the materials on record, including the statement of one of the correspondents working under the petitioner, recorded under Section 183 BNSS. The State placed before the Court a list of 20 separate prior criminal cases registered against the petitioner across multiple police stations between 2022 and 2026, involving offences ranging under the Arms Act, the Information Technology Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, the Copyright Act, and various provisions of the BNS and the erstwhile IPC.
Analysis
The Court considered the materials on record and perused the statement of the correspondent working under the petitioner, recorded under Section 183 BNSS, as well as other statements. Upon such consideration, the Court observed that it was not inclined to entertain the application of the petitioner for grant of the exceptional remedy of pre-arrest bail.
The Court, however, emphasised that the observations made in the order were only for the purpose of considering the anticipatory bail application (ABLAPL) and ought not to be construed as the Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the petitioner. The Court further observed that the accusation qua the petitioner has to be established in an independent manner in the ongoing probe.
Decision
Consequently, the Court rejected the application seeking pre-arrest bail and the ABLAPL stood disposed of.
[Sudhanshu Sekhar Rout v. State of Odisha, ABLAPL No. 8997 of 2026, decided on 6-8-2026]
