Court rules that special protections for women do not automatically guarantee anticipatory bail, especially when cognizance of serious offences like murder and criminal conspiracy has attained finality and co-accused have been denied bail by Supreme Court
In a significant judgment delivered on October 31, 2026, the Orissa High Court, presided over by Mr. V. Narasingh, J., refused anticipatory bail to Bidyabharati Panda, the wife of the deceased, in a high-profile murder conspiracy case. The petitioner was accused of conspiring in the murder of her husband, Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra, a government officer, along with two co-accused, including the then Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) Sangram Keshari Behera.
The case originated from Paralakhemundi Police Station Case No.141 of 2021, registered under Sections 302 (murder) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigation was later handed over to the CID Crime Branch due to the sensitive nature of the allegations. Initially, the CID charge sheeted the petitioner under lesser charges of negligent conduct and causing death by negligence (Sections 285 and 304-A IPC), absolving others. However, the deceased's father filed a protest petition, leading the learned S.D.J.M. to take cognizance under the more serious Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, a decision that has attained finality after the petitioner's unsuccessful challenge before the Orissa High Court.
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, invoking the special provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides certain protections for women in custodial matters. Her counsel argued that since she is a woman, and had complied with police notices under Section 41-A CrPC, she deserved liberal consideration for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner also pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which clarified that principles governing post-arrest bail apply equally to anticipatory bail.
However, the court held that the special protections for women cannot be granted in abstraction, ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case. It noted the prima facie materials on record indicating the petitioner's complicity in the crime, including allegations that the deceased feared for his life due to an illicit relationship between the petitioner and the co-accused DFO. The court also emphasized the principle of parity, observing that co-accused Sangram Keshari Behera's anticipatory bail was rejected by the Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court on merits.
The High Court reiterated that once cognizance of a cognizable offence like murder and conspiracy has attained finality, it is not open to the accused to seek anticipatory bail on the ground that the case is merely an offshoot of complaint allegations. The court underscored that the trial court remains free to consider bail or discharge applications independently, without being influenced by the anticipatory bail rejection.
Rejecting the anticipatory bail petition, the court clarified that the petitioner remains at liberty to appear before the trial court and seek appropriate relief as per law. The judgment thereby affirms the judiciary's rigorous approach in serious offences involving conspiracy and murder, balancing procedural safeguards with the gravity of allegations.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail in murder conspiracy case - Mere fact that accused is a woman does not by itself justify grant of pre-arrest bail where cognizance under Sections 302/120B IPC has attained finality, prima facie materials exist, and co-accused similarly placed has already been denied anticipatory bail up to the Supreme Court - Principles governing post-arrest bail apply equally to anticipatory bail.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 120-B, 285, 304-A; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 41-A, 438; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 480 (proviso)
Bidyabharati Panda v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3011076
