Introduction:

The Orissa High Court, by an order dated January 29, 2026, refused to grant bail to Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta and Susil Kumar Dhalasamanta, popularly known as the Dhalasamanta brothers or D-Brothers, in a criminal case involving allegations of extortion, criminal conspiracy, and unauthorized possession of firearms and live ammunition. The bail applications arose out of an FIR registered in the year 2020 at Markat Nagar Police Station, Cuttack, under Sections 386, 387 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA) and 25(1-B) of the Arms Act. The matter is presently pending trial before the Court of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking their release on bail primarily on the grounds of alleged non-applicability of Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act and prolonged incarceration. The case was heard and decided by Justice Gourishankar Satapathy, who took into account not only the seriousness of the allegations but also the extensive criminal antecedents and past convictions of the petitioners, ultimately concluding that the case did not warrant the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in favour of bail. The judgment stands as a strong reaffirmation of the principle that habitual offenders and history-sheeters cannot claim parity with first-time offenders, and that courts must remain conscious of the broader societal impact while considering bail in serious criminal cases.

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel Mr. C. Samantaray, along with Mr. S.K. Patra and Mr. S. Biswal, advanced a multi-pronged argument seeking bail for the Dhalasamanta brothers. The primary submission revolved around the applicability of Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act, which prescribes stringent punishment of not less than ten years extending up to life imprisonment. It was contended that the essential ingredients of the said provision were not prima facie satisfied in the present case, as the arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from the house of the petitioners were not possessed in an unauthorized manner. According to the petitioners, the seizure of firearms and ammunition was made in connection with another criminal case, and their implication under the Arms Act in the present FIR was therefore legally unsustainable and irrelevant. The counsel argued that this fundamental infirmity in the prosecution case substantially diluted the gravity of the offence and entitled the petitioners to bail. Another significant argument advanced was that of prolonged incarceration. It was urged that the petitioners had been in custody for a considerable period, the trial was still pending, and continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment, offending the principles of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The defence also sought to downplay the extortion allegations by contending that the prosecution version was exaggerated and that the evidence would ultimately not sustain a conviction. Emphasis was laid on the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that mere seriousness of allegations should not justify indefinite incarceration without conclusion of trial.

In sharp contrast, the State of Odisha, represented by Special Counsel Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, vehemently opposed the bail applications, placing strong reliance on the criminal history of the petitioners. The State submitted that the Dhalasamanta brothers were not ordinary accused persons but notorious gangsters with a long and chequered criminal past, whose activities had terrorised the public and disturbed social order. It was highlighted that both petitioners had multiple criminal antecedents, including convictions in serious offences. The State produced materials demonstrating that petitioner no.1, Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta, had already been convicted in two criminal cases, one resulting in a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and another resulting in five years’ imprisonment. Similarly, petitioner no.2, Susil Kumar Dhalasamanta, had been convicted in one criminal case and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The State argued that such antecedents squarely attracted the bar under Section 480(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which restricts the grant of bail to persons previously convicted of serious cognizable offences. The prosecution further contended that offences under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act carry severe punishment and that Section 31 of the Arms Act prescribes enhanced punishment for repeat offenders, thereby significantly increasing the gravity of the allegations. It was submitted that the plea regarding non-applicability of Section 25(1-AA) involved disputed questions of fact and law which could only be adjudicated after evidence is led during trial, and not at the stage of bail. The State also rejected the plea of long incarceration, relying on Supreme Court precedents which hold that seriousness of the offence and societal interest override the length of custody in grave cases. The State finally urged that releasing such hardened criminals on bail would pose a serious threat to witnesses, impede fair trial, and adversely impact public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Judgment:

After carefully considering the rival submissions, the Orissa High Court dismissed the bail applications, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. Justice Gourishankar Satapathy placed considerable emphasis on the criminal antecedents and prior convictions of the petitioners, observing that such factors cannot be brushed aside lightly, as they have a definite and adverse impact on society at large. The Court reiterated that while general principles governing bail have been well-settled through judicial precedents, criminal antecedents assume critical importance when dealing with habitual offenders and history-sheeters. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court underscored that bail orders must reflect judicious application of mind, particularly where the accused has a proven criminal background. The Court also examined the statutory bar contained in Section 480(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, noting that the petitioners’ past convictions clearly brought them within the mischief of the provision, thereby militating against their release on bail. Justice Satapathy categorically recorded that petitioner no.1 had been convicted in two criminal cases with sentences of seven years and five years respectively, while petitioner no.2 had been convicted in one case with a sentence of seven years, facts which decisively weighed against them. Addressing the contention that Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act was not made out, the Court held that such a plea could not be accepted at the bail stage, as it required appreciation of evidence and determination by the trial court. The Court expressly declined to render any opinion on the merits of the Arms Act charge, observing that doing so would be neither advisable nor desirable in a bail proceeding. The High Court further rejected the argument of long incarceration by relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai, holding that in cases involving serious offences, the mere length of custody cannot be the sole or decisive factor for grant of bail. Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the stringent punishment prescribed under the Arms Act, the possibility of enhanced punishment for repeat offences, and the undeniable criminal history of the petitioners, the Court concluded that granting bail would be against the interests of justice and society. Accordingly, the bail petition was dismissed.