Petitioners' extensive criminal history and previous convictions under Arms Act lead to rejection of bail application
Cuttack, January 29, 2026 - The Orissa High Court, presided over by Justice G. Satapathy, has rejected the bail application of Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta and others in a case involving allegations of demanding extortion money and possession of unauthorized firearms and live ammunition. The decision was made under BLAPL No. 6805 of 2025, with the court emphasizing the seriousness of the offences, the petitioners' criminal antecedents, and the societal impact of their actions.
The petitioners, represented by advocates Mr. C. Samantaray, Mr. S.K. Patra, and Mr. S. Biswal, argued for bail citing the substantial period of detention, which has exceeded ten years. They challenged the applicability of Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act, contending that the seized weapons were not unauthorized. However, the court dismissed these arguments, stating that such issues must be resolved during the trial rather than at the bail stage.
Opposing the bail plea, Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, the special counsel for the State of Odisha, highlighted the petitioners' history of convictions under the Arms Act and other crimes. He underscored the legislative mandate under Section 31 of the Arms Act, which prescribes double punishment for subsequent offences, arguing that this warranted denial of bail.
The court's decision was influenced by several factors, including the petitioners' past convictions, extensive criminal history, and the seriousness of the charges. Justice Satapathy referenced judgments from the Supreme Court, particularly citing the case of Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which emphasized the impact of criminal antecedents on bail considerations and the need to maintain public trust in the justice system.
Moreover, the court noted that the length of custody should not automatically justify bail, especially when the offences are of a grave nature. This stance was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai, which prioritized the seriousness of the offence over the duration of imprisonment when considering bail applications.
In conclusion, the Orissa High Court determined that granting bail to the petitioners would not be appropriate given their criminal background and the gravity of the alleged offences. The court's decision underscores the importance of societal impact and legislative mandates in bail considerations, ensuring that justice is served while upholding public confidence in the legal system.
Bottom Line:
Bail application under Section 439 of CrPC was rejected due to the petitioners' criminal antecedents, previous convictions under the Arms Act, and the seriousness of the offences, emphasizing societal impact and legislative mandates for subsequent offences.
Statutory provision(s): Section 439 of CrPC, Section 386/387/120-B of IPC, Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-AA)/25(1-B) of Arms Act, Section 31 of Arms Act, 1959
Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845451
