Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Torching Vehicles Near High Court Premises
The Orissa High Court has granted bail to a woman who, in March this year, threw a burnt bottle containing petrol towards the High Court premises as a result of which four vehicles parked nearby the boundary wall caught fire and were damaged.Considering the fact that the accused-petitioner is a lady who has a five-year-old son, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy...
The Orissa High Court has granted bail to a woman who, in March this year, threw a burnt bottle containing petrol towards the High Court premises as a result of which four vehicles parked nearby the boundary wall caught fire and were damaged.
Considering the fact that the accused-petitioner is a lady who has a five-year-old son, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held–
“…there appears allegation against the petitioner for throwing bottle containing petrol with fire to the vehicles and causing damage to four vehicles by fire, but the petitioner herself is not only a lady, but also she is having a five years child, however, the child is remaining outside the jail as submitted. No doubt, there is serious objection and opposition to the bail application of the petitioner, but at the end, the petitioner herself being a lady is also entitled to the benefit of first proviso appended to Section 480 of BNSS.”
On 31.03.2026, the petitioner went near the entrance gate of the High Court heritage building, situated at Cuttack's Chandini Chowk, with a bottle filled with petrol. She allegedly ignited fire and threw the bottle inside the Court premises. However, in the process, four vehicles which were parked close to the boundary wall caught fire and were damaged.
The police immediately nabbed the lady and registered an FIR for commission of offences under Sections 326(g) (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house), 326(f) (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or more), 329 (criminal trespass), 287 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter), 125 (act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. She filed this bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even if the materials on record are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against her since she is a psychiatric patient and what she did was beyond her control at the time of occurrence. Further, as the investigation is already complete and the chargesheet has been filed, it was argued that she be admitted to bail by resorting to first proviso appended to Section 480 of BNSS.
Apart from receiving serious opposition from the State Counsel, the bail application was sought to be dismissed by a lady Advocate whose vehicle got damaged due to the fire. Instead of releasing her on bail, they sought an order directing the petitioner to pay appropriate compensation for the damage caused.
Upon considering the material on record, the Court opined that since the petitioner is a woman having a five-year-old child, she is entitled to the benefit of first proviso appended to Section 480, BNSS. Accordingly, the Court observed–
“In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against her and regard being had to the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody since 31.03.2026 with submission of charge-sheet in the meantime and there being no criminal antecedent of similar nature reported against the petitioner and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety including the principle of bail and the release of an accused being not to be equated with or considered for her acquittal and there being inherent right ingrained on each accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial, this Court without expressing any view on merit, admits the petitioner to bail, but subject to certain conditions.”
The bail was granted on the strict condition that the petitioner shall not indulge herself in similar act again and shall not come near the High Court premises. She was also asked to refrain from threatening, inducing, influencing or coercing any of the witnesses, including the family members of the informant/victim, acquainted with the facts of the case.
Case Title: Minati Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: BLAPL No. 5320 of 2026
Date of Order: July 23, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Bijayananda Dash, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. Public Prosecutor; Mr. R.K. Meher, Advocate (Informant); Ms. P. Agarwal, Advocate (Victim)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 84