Emphasising that an accused cannot be stripped of his constitutional protection because of his reputation as a “history-sheeter”, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh remarked–

“The description of the deceased as a history-sheeter, however, cannot dilute the constitutional protection available to him. The right to life under Article 21 is not contingent upon the antecedents or social standing of an individual… At this juncture, this Court can do no better than to refer to the immortal words of Sir Robert Peel, "We are not to forget that the policeman is the public and the public is the policeman." Society governed by the rule of law expects discipline, not death, in custody; for custody is not a licence to keep Constitutional Rights at bay.”

On 30.01.2017, the petitioners, a Sub-Inspector, an Additional Sub-Inspector and a Constable respectively, went to arrest the deceased, who was involved in as many as 14 cases. It was asserted that the deceased, in his attempt to evade arrest while fleeing on his motorcycle, fell down on Canal Road and sustained multiple injuries. Though he was taken to hospitals, he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.

The mother of the deceased/the informant approached the Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC) and also filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking compensation and appropriate action against the errant police officers for the alleged custodial death of the deceased. Subsequently, the CID-CB took over the investigation by filing an FIR under Sections 342, 323, 325, 302, 506 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioners.

The petitioners, who are in custody since 29.08.2025, filed bail applications before the Sessions Judge, Koraput, which came to rejected. Therefore, they knocked at the portals of the High Court for relief.

The Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contented that the death of the deceased was purely accidental in nature due to his sudden fall from motor-bike. Though the State attempted to oppose the contention by relying upon the statements of several witnesses, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the test identification parade having been conducted after long lapse of time and in view of the wide and adverse publicity, no reliance should be placed upon it.

The Court perused the statement of several witnesses which indicated that the deceased was assaulted by the police with a pipe, resulting in his fall and subsequently, he was further assaulted and later on, was taken in a jeep. The Court was of the view that such statement, when read in the context of the allegation, assumes significance since it unerringly indicates that even the fall of the deceased from the motorcycle is not accidental.

Relying upon a plethora of precedents affirming rights of a person in custody, Justice Narasingh held that right to life under Article 21 is not contingent upon the antecedents or social standing of an individual and the alleged custodial death has to be treated solemnly, since the “guardians of the life and limb of the citizen” are facing the accusation.

The Court further took into consideration 24 injuries found on the body of the deceased. It also noted that multiple medical opinions were sought in order to screen the petitioners from the accusation and to give the incident the colour of an accident.

Therefore, taking into account nature of allegations, statement of witnesses, the medical report, the allegation regarding attempt to seek multiple medical opinions solely to favour the petitioners, and the possibility of undue influence upon the witnesses, the Court deemed it apposite to deny bail to the petitioners. However, liberty was granted to renew the prayer for bail after examination of material witnesses.

Date of Order: October 14, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. T.N. Murty, Mr. Devashis Panda & Mr. A.K Budhia, Advocates

Counsel for the State: Mr. Sovan Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel