'Series Of Criminal Antecedents': Orissa High Court Denies Bail To Gangsters D-Brothers In Extortion & Arms Act Case

The Orissa High Court has denied bail to notorious gangsters Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta and Susil Kumar Dhalasamanta, best known as Dhalasamanta brothers/D-Brothers, in a case involving extortion of money and unauthorized possession of firearms and live ammunitions in their house.For denying relief to the petitioners, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy took into account numerous criminal antecedents against the duo. It further observed –“Besides, there are series of criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners. What should be the consideration for grant bail has been elucidated in a plethora of decisions, but in addition to such factors for consideration of bail application, the criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be brushed lightly as it has got definite impact on the society.”The petitioners/D-brothers sought bail in connection with an FIR registered by Markat Nagar Police Station in 2020, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.386/387/120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-AA)/25(1-B) of Arms Act, which is pending for trial before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The main allegation against them being demand of extortion money and possession of unauthorized firearms and live ammunition in their house.The counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed for grant of bail on the main ground that the alleged offence under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act is not prima facie made out in this case, since the arms and ammunition were not possessed by them in unauthorised manner. Further, it was his contention that the said arms were seized in connection with another case which is irrelevant to this present FIR. He also sought for their liberty on the ground of long incarceration.The Court, however, found force with the submission of the counsel for the State who highlighted the past convictions of the petitioners. The Court noted a series of criminal antecedents, including convictions, against them. Referring to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2014), it held that criminal antecedents of history-sheeters cannot be brushed aside casually.Justice Satapathy also took note of the provision under Section 480(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which says that a person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years.“Further, it is not in dispute that petitioner no.1-Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta has been convicted in two criminal cases and is accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years in one criminal case and imprisonment for five years in another criminal case. Similarly, the comprehensive affidavit filed by petitioner no.2-Susil Kumar Dhalasamanta reveals about his conviction in one criminal case with sentence to undergo imprisonment for seven years therein,” he noted.Additionally, Section 25(1-AA) of Arms Act provides punishment which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life with fine. Section 31 of the Arms Act prescribes that if a person is convicted for the second time under the Act, he shall be liable to be punished with double the penalty provided for the latter offence. “It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 25(1-AA) of Arms Act is not made out against the petitioners, but such plea has to be decided by the learned trial Court after evidence is being led. In a bail proceeding, this Court does not consider it advisable or desirable to accept such plea at this stage to say that the offence under Section 25(1-AA) of Arms Act is not made out…this Court does not consider it proper to opine that the offence under Section 25(1-AA) of Arms Act is not made out against the petitioners.”The Court also rejected the plea of the petitioners on the ground of long incarceration citing the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Bihar & Anr. v. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai (2017), wherein it was held that when the offence is serious, the mere fact that the accused was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts.Accordingly, the bail petition was dismissed.Case Title: Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta & Anr. v. State of Odisha Case No: BLAPL No. 6805 of 2025Date of Order: January 29, 2026Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. C. Samantaray, Mr. S.K. Patra & Mr. S. Biswal, AdvocatesCounsel for the State: Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Special CounselCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 13Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Series Of Criminal Antecedents': Orissa High Court Denies Bail To Gangsters D-Brothers In Extortion & Arms Act Case

Live Law News Network

Tags