Court Highlights Multiple Injuries on Deceased, Witness Testimonies, and Potential Witness Tampering in Rejecting Bail Applications of Three Police Officers
In a significant judgment delivered on October 14, 2026, the Orissa High Court refused bail to three police personnel accused in an alleged custodial death case involving the death of Akash Mahuria in 2017. The accused-constable Debendra Kumar Paik, Additional Sub-Inspector Krushna Chandra Behera, and Sub-Inspector Siba Prasad Sahu (also known as Siba Sankar Sahu)-have been in custody since August 29, 2025, facing charges for causing death not amounting to murder and related offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The case arose from an incident on January 30, 2017, when the deceased, a history-sheeter with a record of 14 cases, was apprehended by the police team led by the accused. The prosecution alleges that Mahuria was brutally assaulted by the police officers, leading to his death while in custody at the District Headquarters Hospital, Koraput. Initial police reports had classified the incident as an accident resulting from the deceased's fall during an attempted escape on a motorcycle, but subsequent investigations, following complaints by the deceased's mother and recommendations from the Odisha Human Rights Commission, led to the registration of a case against the accused under multiple sections of the IPC including culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304), and offences related to public servants' misconduct (Sections 217, 218, 201, and 34).
During the bail hearing, the accused petitioned for release citing prolonged incarceration exceeding a year after the filing of the charge-sheet and the absence of any other pending bail applications. However, the Court meticulously examined the evidence on record, particularly the statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by eyewitnesses who described merciless assault by the police and identified the accused at the scene. The medical evidence revealed 24 ante-mortem injuries on the deceased, including abrasions, contusions, lacerated wounds, and a fracture, contradicting the claim of accidental injury. The post-mortem report documented extensive trauma such as subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages and fractures consistent with blunt force assault.
The Court emphasized that the constitutional protection of life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution applies uniformly, regardless of the victim's antecedents, and stressed the heightened duty of the State and its agencies to protect individuals in custody. It referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, which impose strict safeguards against custodial violence and deaths.
Further, the Court underscored the gravity of the allegations against police personnel, noting that bail in such cases must be approached with caution. It rejected the argument that prolonged custody alone justifies bail, stressing that the totality of circumstances-including the possibility of witness tampering and manipulation of medical evidence-must be considered. The Court observed that releasing the accused at this stage could undermine the sanctity of the trial and impair justice.
However, the Court left the door open for the accused to renew their bail applications before the trial court after the examination of material witnesses, which would be considered on its merits. It also directed that the trial be conducted expeditiously to ensure swift justice.
This ruling sends a strong message regarding the accountability of law enforcement officers in custodial deaths and reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding human rights and the rule of law.
Bottom Line:
Bail in alleged custodial death case involving police personnel cannot be granted merely on the ground of prolonged incarceration after filing of charge-sheet, where witness statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., medical evidence showing multiple injuries, and apprehension of witness influence indicate that release may undermine the sanctity of trial.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 304, 217, 218, 201, 34, 279, 304-A, 342, 323, 325, 302, 506; Criminal Procedure Code Section 164; Constitution of India Article 21
Debendra Kumar Paik v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997371
