Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Gangster Sushanta Dhalasamanta In 2004 Murder Case Citing 10-Yrs Long Pre-Trial Incarceration

The Orissa High Court has granted bail to gangster Sushanta Dhalasamanta, who is a part of notorious crime syndicate Dhalasamanta Brothers/D-Brothers, in a murder case citing more than ten years of pre-trial incarceration.

A Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy made it clear that mere existence of criminal antecedents against an accused do not give license to the prosecution to seek indefinite cessation of personal liberty by way of pre-trial custody. In the words of the Judge–

“No doubt the Petitioner is having some criminal antecedents, but mere existence of criminal antecedents would not be sufficient to refuse bail, unless there is material to indicate that the Petitioner in the event of enlargement on bail would terrorize the material witnesses whose evidence are material for the prosecution case.”

The petitioner was taken into custody on 08.04.2016 in connection with the murder of one Akhaya Kumar Malia in the year 2004. He was charge-sheeted and made to face trial for the commission of offences under Sections 302/120-B/34 of IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court pointed out that though the petitioner has multiple criminal antecedents to his name, it is undisputed that he is in custody for more than last ten years. Out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 9 had been examined in the last decade, out of which 7 witnesses have been declared hostile.

Nevertheless, the State counsel vehemently opposed the bail petition by relying upon the versions of two vital prosecution witnesses. However, Justice Satapathy found from the order sheets of the trial Court that summons could not be served upon both the witnesses as they have expired in the meantime.

It was further pointed out by the petitioner that the co-accused Sushil Dhalasamanta has already been acquitted by a trial Court in 2010 and the said acquittal judgment was never challenged by the State before the High Court. Furthermore, the jurisdictional IIC could not give a specific time period to conclude the examination of all prosecution witnesses. The Court was also irked by the prosecution's tactics to unnecessarily delay the trial. It accordingly observed–

“What is more astonishing that the learned trial Court in its report has made it clear that it would take one year to conclude the trial, nevertheless the petitioner is in custody for more than ten years without conclusion of trial. It is also equally unfortunate, but true that the prosecution on 22.04.2026 has filed petition U/S. 311 CrPC to issue summons against witnesses namely……, but such application is pending for disposal. The effort of the prosecution only seems that they want to unnecessary drag the case inasmuch as they could not file such a petition within 10 years of the custody of the petitioner, but when this Court asks to intimate as to when the prosecution would conclude examination of witnesses, this petition has been filed.”

Against the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1005 and the most recent order in Vaibhav Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 439, wherein it was held that irrespective of criminal antecedents and gravity of crime respectively, long pre-trial incarceration warrants grant of bail to the accused.

In Vaibhav Singh (supra), while granting bail to an undertrial murder accused incarcerated for 9 years, the Apex Court held–

“In many of our judgments and on many occasions, we have said in so many words that howsoever grave the crime may be, but if the accused is denied his right of speedy trial and is languishing in jail for years together and for no fault on his part, he cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period.”

Having regard for the said precedents, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by observing–

“In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the long drawn trial without the assurance of right to speedy trial to the accused and that too, when co-accused standing on similar footing has already been acquitted in a separated trial and the witnesses already examined till today having not supported the prosecution allegation against the Petitioner with material witnesses like Krushna Chandra Malia and Dibakar Behera already being reported to be dead , this Court without expressing any view on merits admits the Petitioner to bail.”

Notably, the High Court had denied bail to the D-Brothers earlier this year in an extortion case [Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 13] citing series of criminal antecedents against them. Justice Satapathy had then observed–

“Besides, there are series of criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners. What should be the consideration for grant bail has been elucidated in a plethora of decisions, but in addition to such factors for consideration of bail application, the criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be brushed lightly as it has got definite impact on the society.”

Case Title: Sushanta Dhalasamanta v. State of Orissa

Case No: BLAPL No. 8474 of 2025

Date of Order: May 04, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Chandan Samantaray, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Specially engaged Counsel for the State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 49

Click Here To Read/Download Order