Orissa High Court Refuses Bail To Accused In 2024 Spurious Liquor Tragedy That Claimed Five Lives

The Orissa High Court has denied bail to five persons accused of selling spurious liquor, allegedly containing ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate, which caused death of five persons apart from causing illness of dozen others in K. Nuagaon area of Ganjam district in August 2024.

Denying any relief at this stage, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –

“What is relevant at this stage is that five persons suffered death and some persons suffered illness after consuming liquor sold by the co-accused persons and there is allegation against the petitioners for either selling the liquor to some of the villagers without any authority or supplying the same to vendors-cum-co-accused persons for selling it.”

On August 19, 2024, the Sub-Inspector (SI) of K. Nuagaon police station received information about illness of more than 15 persons, hailing from three villages under his police jurisdiction, due to consumption of alleged spurious liquor upon purchasing the same from the petitioners. Though they were given primary treatment at a local Community Healthcare Centre, due to their worsening condition, they were further referred to MKCG Hospital, Berhampur. However, five persons died while undergoing treatment.

The police registered an FIR against the petitioners under Sections 61(2), 110, 274, 123, 275, 103(1), 118, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) read with Sections 52(a), 59 and 62 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners along with certain other accused persons. The petitioners preferred this bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The gist of contentions on behalf of the petitioners is that they are not responsible for the death of the deceased persons who, according to them, died of certain other reasons. For substantiating such contention, they relied upon the viscera report submitted by the CFSL, Kolkata which found no poisonous or toxic substance in the body of the deceased.

One of the accused-petitioners was the village headman who was not attributed any role in selling the liquor, rather was accused of assisting the other petitioners in selling the liquor to the villagers. It was argued on his behalf that in absence of any direct role in supplying or selling spurious liquor to anyone, he should not be entangled in the case.

Before delving into the facts, the Court ingeminated the principles governing exercise of discretion in cases of bail. For the aforesaid purpose, it put explicit reliance on the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) and Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra & Ors. (2022) which held that a Court before granting bail must inter alia examine nature and gravity of allegation(s).

Justice Satapathy acknowledged the gravity of the allegation by noting the fact that upon consuming the alleged spurious liquor fetched from the petitioners, the deceased persons not only fell ill but ultimately lost their lives purportedly due to multi-organ failures.

Though the viscera report received from the CFSL, Kolkata negated the presence of any poisonous or toxic substance in the visceral samples of the deceased, the chemical examination made upon the samples of liquor seized from the houses of the petitioners, however, suggested presence of hazardous particles of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate. Therefore, the Court rejected the bail pleas of the five petitioners by observing –

“In view of the discussions of facts and considering the role of each of the petitioners together with tragic death of five innocent persons and number of persons suffering from illness after consuming liquor allegedly sold by some of the petitioners and taking into account the impact of death of innocent villagers after consuming liquor on the society and trial having not yet commenced, it would not be proper to grant bail to the persons who are allegedly selling or supplying the liquor…”

However, so far as the role of village headman was concerned, the Court was of the opinion that there is no direct material suggesting his prima facie culpability for which he deserves to be released on bail, especially considering absence of any criminal antecedent.

Case Title: Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu @ Pabana Sahu & Ors. v. State of Odisha

Case No: BLAPL Nos. 9883, 9885, 12570 of 2024 & 3926, 3948, 4553 of 2025

Date of Order: January 06, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. B.K. Raj, Advocate (In BLAPL Nos. 9883 & 9885 of 2024); Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 12570 of 2024); Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate (In BLAPL No. 3926 of 2025); Mr. S.K. Pradhan, Advocate (In BLAPL Nos. 3948 & 4553 of 2025)

Counsel for the State: Mr. M.R. Patra, Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 3

Click Here To Read/Download Order