Introduction:
The Orissa High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a woman accused in connection with the suspicious death of her husband, a former Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF), who died after sustaining severe burn injuries at his official residence in Paralakhemundi, Odisha, in July 2021. The Court held that the serious allegations against the petitioner, the materials collected during the proceedings and the rejection of anticipatory bail to a co-accused did not provide any distinguishing circumstances warranting similar relief in her favour.
Justice V. Narasingh delivered the order on October 31, 2026, dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed by Bidyabharati Panda, wife of deceased ACF Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra. The case involved allegations of murder and criminal conspiracy arising from the circumstances surrounding Mohapatra’s death, with the petitioner’s alleged relationship with the then Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Paralakhemundi, forming a central part of the prosecution’s theory.
The incident occurred on July 12, 2021, when Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra sustained extensive burn injuries at his official residence. According to the initial version provided by his wife, the injuries were caused while he was burning certain scrap materials using kerosene. However, the circumstances of the incident raised suspicion in the mind of his father, who alleged that the death was not accidental but the result of a planned criminal act.
The deceased’s father alleged that Bidyabharati Panda was involved in an extramarital relationship with the then DFO, Sangram Keshari Behera. According to the allegations, the deceased had become aware of this relationship and was apprehending danger to his life. The father further alleged that the petitioner, in collusion with the DFO and a cook, had participated in a conspiracy to murder his son.
Following the incident, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Crime Investigation Department, Crime Branch (CID-CB), investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the three accused persons. The investigating agency invoked Sections 285 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which concern negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter and causing death by negligence, respectively.
On the basis of the charge sheet, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Paralakhemundi, took cognizance of the offences against the accused persons. However, the deceased’s father was dissatisfied with the conclusions of the investigation and filed a protest petition questioning the manner in which the case had been investigated.
The SDJM subsequently treated the protest petition as a complaint and recorded the initial statements of the informant-father and other witnesses. Upon examining the material presented, the Magistrate found a prima facie case for offences involving murder and criminal conspiracy. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against the petitioner and the other accused under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC.
The development significantly altered the nature of the criminal proceedings. What had initially proceeded on allegations of negligent death under Sections 285 and 304-A of the IPC now included allegations of intentional murder and conspiracy.
The petitioner, along with the then DFO, had earlier challenged the cognizance order before the High Court, but their attempts to have the proceedings quashed were unsuccessful. The anticipatory bail applications filed by the DFO and the cook had also been rejected by the High Court. In particular, the DFO’s rejection of pre-arrest bail was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Before approaching the High Court for anticipatory bail, Bidyabharati Panda had also sought exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the SDJM. After that application was rejected, she challenged the order before the High Court and subsequently approached the Supreme Court. Both attempts were unsuccessful. However, while dismissing her special leave petition, the Supreme Court granted her liberty to seek anticipatory bail in accordance with law.
The petitioner thereafter approached the Orissa High Court seeking protection from arrest.
The legal issue before Justice Narasingh was whether the petitioner deserved the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail despite the serious allegations of murder and conspiracy, the judicial order taking cognizance under Section 302 IPC and the rejection of similar relief to the co-accused allegedly involved in the same criminal conspiracy.
The application also raised an issue concerning the special consideration available to women accused persons under the law relating to bail.
Section 438 of the CrPC, which governed the petitioner’s application, provides for anticipatory bail where a person apprehending arrest on an accusation of a non-bailable offence approaches the competent court for pre-arrest protection. The provision confers discretionary jurisdiction upon the High Court and the Court of Session to grant appropriate protection after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner also relied upon the proviso to Section 480(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which recognises a special consideration for certain categories of accused persons, including women, in matters of bail.
The High Court was therefore required to consider both the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s claim to the benefit of the statutory provision relating to women accused persons.
Arguments of the Parties:
Arguments advanced by the petitioner-wife
Appearing for Bidyabharati Panda, counsel Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan argued that the allegations levelled against her did not disclose any specific or credible material establishing her involvement in the alleged murder of her husband.
The petitioner’s principal contention was that the accusations were largely based on suspicion and allegations concerning her purported extramarital relationship with the then DFO. According to her, the existence of an alleged personal relationship could not, by itself, establish participation in a criminal conspiracy or prove involvement in the commission of murder.
The defence sought to distinguish between the allegations made by the deceased’s father and the actual material available against the petitioner. It was argued that serious criminal charges could not be sustained merely on the basis of conjectures, particularly when the investigation conducted by the SIT had initially resulted in a charge sheet invoking Sections 285 and 304-A of the IPC.
The petitioner also relied upon the fact that the investigating agency had filed its charge sheet under provisions relating to negligent conduct and causing death by negligence, rather than murder. This aspect formed part of her challenge to the subsequent proceedings initiated on the basis of the protest petition.
Another important argument concerned the special consideration available to women accused persons under the law relating to bail.
The petitioner’s counsel invoked the proviso to Section 480(1) of the BNSS, 2023, which recognises a special category of accused persons, including women, who may receive favourable consideration while seeking bail. The defence contended that the beneficial principle underlying this provision should also extend to applications seeking anticipatory bail.
According to the petitioner, the statutory recognition of special consideration for women should not be restricted merely because the accused was seeking protection before arrest rather than regular bail after being taken into custody.
The argument was intended to persuade the Court to adopt a liberal approach while examining her request for pre-arrest protection.
The petitioner also relied upon the procedural history of the matter. She had previously approached the Supreme Court after the rejection of her application seeking exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC. Although the Supreme Court dismissed her special leave petition, it had expressly granted liberty to seek anticipatory bail.
The petitioner consequently maintained that her application deserved independent consideration on its merits and that the rejection of anticipatory bail to the other accused persons should not automatically determine her entitlement to relief.
Arguments advanced by the informant and the State
The anticipatory bail application was strongly opposed by the counsel appearing for the deceased’s father, Mr. Rakesh Behera, and the State, represented by Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Satyabrata Panda.
The respondents submitted that the circumstances surrounding the death raised serious allegations against the petitioner and could not be dismissed as mere suspicion.
They specifically referred to the allegation that the deceased had become aware of an illicit relationship between his wife and the then DFO, following which he had allegedly started apprehending danger to his life.
According to the informant’s case, the petitioner and the DFO had allegedly acted in concert, along with the cook, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to cause the deceased’s death.
The respondents also highlighted the circumstances in which the deceased sustained approximately 95 per cent burn injuries.
It was pointed out that the petitioner was alone with her husband when he suffered the fatal injuries at their official residence. The respondents relied upon this circumstance while opposing the petitioner’s attempt to obtain protection from arrest.
The deceased’s father further maintained that the original investigation had not adequately addressed the circumstances suggesting intentional criminal involvement. His protest petition had therefore been filed to bring additional material and witness statements to the attention of the Magistrate.
The respondents emphasised that the SDJM had not mechanically accepted the allegations contained in the protest petition. Instead, the Magistrate had treated it as a complaint, recorded the initial statements of the informant and other witnesses, and thereafter found sufficient grounds to take cognizance under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC.
Accordingly, the allegations against the petitioner had acquired the character of a matter supported by prima facie judicial satisfaction rather than remaining confined to the original suspicions expressed by the deceased’s father.
The respondents also drew attention to the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail applications filed by the co-accused, particularly the then DFO, Sangram Keshari Behera.
The DFO’s application had been rejected by the Orissa High Court, and the Supreme Court had subsequently affirmed that decision. The cook’s anticipatory bail application had also been rejected by the High Court.
The informant and the State therefore argued that the petitioner could not claim a different treatment when the allegations against her arose from the same alleged criminal conspiracy.
They maintained that the seriousness of the allegations, the circumstances surrounding the death and the judicial order taking cognizance of murder and conspiracy justified refusing pre-arrest protection.
The respondents consequently urged the High Court to reject the application and allow the criminal proceedings to continue in accordance with law.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the rival submissions and examining the materials available on record, the Orissa High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to Bidyabharati Panda. Justice V. Narasingh held that the seriousness of the allegations, the order taking cognizance under Section 302 IPC and the rejection of pre-arrest bail to the co-accused, particularly the then DFO, did not disclose any distinguishing circumstances warranting a favourable exercise of discretion in the petitioner’s case.
The Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner were not required to be examined in isolation from the broader circumstances of the alleged criminal conspiracy. The nature of the accusations and the judicial developments following the protest petition were relevant considerations while deciding whether she deserved protection from arrest.
1. Seriousness of the allegations involving murder and criminal conspiracy
The Court began by taking note of the offences for which the petitioner had been summoned to face criminal proceedings.
Justice Narasingh observed that the petitioner was an accused in a case involving, among other offences, Section 302 IPC, which deals with punishment for murder.
The Bench considered the allegation that the alleged offence originated from an illicit relationship between the petitioner and the then DFO, with whom she was accused of conspiring to commit the crime.
The Court also took note of the fact that the anticipatory bail application filed by the DFO had already been rejected by the High Court, and that the Supreme Court had affirmed that decision.
The Court observed:
“On a conspectus of the materials on record, at the cost of brevity, it has to be noted that the Petitioner is cited as an accused for inter-alia commission of the offence under Section 302 the IPC. And, the genesis of the alleged offence is stated to be the illicit relationship between the present Petitioner and the co-accused, the then DFO, whose pre-arrest bail application was rejected by this Court and affirmed by the Apex Court.”
The observation indicates that the Court considered the nature of the allegations and the relationship between the accused persons relevant to determining the petitioner’s entitlement to anticipatory bail.
Importantly, the Court did not treat the alleged extramarital relationship as proof of murder. Rather, it considered the prosecution’s allegation that the relationship formed the background of the alleged conspiracy and examined the bail request in the context of the entire case.
The seriousness of the accusation under Section 302 IPC was an important consideration, although the gravity of an offence alone does not automatically justify refusal of anticipatory bail. The Court’s decision was based on the cumulative circumstances placed before it.
2. Significance of the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance under Section 302 IPC
Another important consideration was the subsequent development in the criminal proceedings following the filing of the SIT charge sheet.
Initially, the investigating agency had submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and the other accused under Sections 285 and 304-A IPC. These provisions concern negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter and causing death by negligence.
However, the deceased’s father was dissatisfied with the investigation and filed a protest petition before the SDJM.
A protest petition provides an opportunity for an informant or complainant to bring objections to the investigation report to the attention of the Magistrate. Depending upon the material available, the Magistrate may consider the protest petition in accordance with the applicable criminal procedure.
In the present matter, the SDJM treated the protest petition as a complaint and recorded the initial statements of the informant and other witnesses.
After considering those statements and the material placed before the Court, the Magistrate found a prima facie basis for proceeding against the accused for murder and criminal conspiracy.
Consequently, cognizance was taken under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC.
The distinction between the original police report and the subsequent cognizance order was significant for the anticipatory bail proceedings.
The petitioner sought to rely upon the fact that the SIT had initially filed a charge sheet for offences involving negligence. However, the proceedings had subsequently progressed on the basis of the Magistrate’s independent consideration of the protest petition and the statements recorded during the complaint proceedings.
The High Court took note of this development and observed that the order taking cognizance under Section 302 IPC had attained finality.
This meant that the petitioner could not approach the anticipatory bail proceedings as though the criminal case remained confined exclusively to the allegations originally incorporated in the police charge sheet.
The Court considered the subsequent judicial proceedings and the prima facie satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate while assessing the seriousness of the accusations.
It is important to clarify that taking cognizance does not amount to a finding of guilt. It indicates that the Magistrate has found sufficient grounds to proceed with the criminal case. The prosecution must still establish the allegations through legally admissible evidence during trial.
Nevertheless, the existence of the cognizance order was a relevant circumstance in determining whether anticipatory bail should be granted.
3. Rejection of anticipatory bail to the co-accused
The High Court also attached importance to the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail applications filed by the other accused persons.
The then DFO, Sangram Keshari Behera, was alleged to have been involved in the same criminal conspiracy as the petitioner. His application for pre-arrest bail had been rejected by the Orissa High Court, and the Supreme Court had affirmed that decision.
The anticipatory bail application of the cook had also been rejected by the High Court.
The petitioner, however, argued that her application should be considered independently and that the rejection of bail to the co-accused could not automatically deprive her of the opportunity to obtain relief.
While considering this submission, the Court examined whether there were any distinguishing circumstances that justified treating her application differently.
The Bench found no such distinguishing features.
It reasoned that the allegations against the petitioner were closely connected with those levelled against the DFO, particularly because the prosecution’s case alleged that they had acted together in furtherance of the crime.
The Court therefore considered the earlier judicial decisions concerning the co-accused relevant to maintaining consistency in the treatment of persons allegedly involved in the same criminal transaction.
4. Application of the principle ‘Ubi eadem ratio, ibi idem jus’
One of the notable aspects of the judgment was the High Court’s reliance on the Latin legal maxim Ubi eadem ratio, ibi idem jus.
The maxim means that where the reason is the same, the law or justice should also be the same.
Justice Narasingh invoked this principle while comparing the petitioner’s application with the earlier anticipatory bail proceedings involving the co-accused.
The Court observed:
“The order of cognizance under Section 302 of IPC having attained finality, in the backdrop of materials which have been brought on record, also in the light of the rejection of the pre-arrest bail of the co-accused, more particularly the then DFO, Sangram Keshari Behera, with whom the present Petitioner is stated to have connived in perpetrating the crime, this Court does not find any distinguishing features so as to enlarge the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail. Ubi eadem ratio, ibi idem jus-where the reason is same, the justice is same.”
The principle was applied to emphasise consistency in judicial decision-making.
Where two accused persons are alleged to have participated in the same criminal conspiracy and the circumstances relevant to their bail applications are substantially similar, the Court may consider whether there is any genuine basis for granting relief to one while refusing it to the other.
However, this principle does ot mean that bail applications of co-accused must invariably receive identical treatment.