Death of Innocents Due to Spurious Liquor Is a Serious Blow to Society—Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Because Viscera Reports Are Inconclusive: Orissa High Court

“Judicial discretion in bail must be cautious when five villagers are dead and multiple others hospitalized”, In a detailed and strongly reasoned judgment, Justice G. Satapathy of the Orissa High Court refused bail to several accused persons in a sensational case arising from the death of five villagers and illness of many others allegedly caused by the consumption of spurious liquor. The Court, while deciding six bail applications arising out of a common case, held that the gravity of the offence, its impact on society, and the prima facie material on record disentitle the principal accused from bail.

The case, which has evoked deep public concern, concerns K. Nuagaon PS Case No.252 of 2024, in which the petitioners face charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Odisha Excise Act for manufacturing, supplying, and selling illicit and toxic liquor. The Court invoked Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the newly enforced procedural statute, to assess the petitioners’ bail pleas, and ultimately granted bail only to one petitioner, Balaram Bisoyi, distinguishing his role from the others.

“Existence of Prima Facie Material Is Sufficient at Bail Stage—Court Need Not Undertake Comparative Analysis of Forensic Reports”

At the heart of the case was the tragic incident of August 2024, when several persons from villages Jenapur, Maundapur and Karabalua fell ill after consuming liquor allegedly purchased from the petitioners. Five villagers eventually died, and many were hospitalized. The prosecution alleged that unauthorized liquor was sold by petitioners Baya Sahu, Bapini Sahu, Pabana Sahu and others, and that ammonium nitrate and sulphate, chemicals commonly used in fertilizers, were found in seized liquor samples.

The petitioners, however, claimed innocence and relied on CFSL viscera reports, which did not reveal the presence of poison in the deceased. But the Court refused to be swayed by such arguments at this stage, holding that:

“It is not permissible at the stage of bail to enter into comparative scrutiny of medical and forensic reports… What is relevant is that five persons have died, and the liquor consumed was prima facie found to be spurious,” observed Justice Satapathy.

The Court further stated: “A detailed evaluation of the expert reports may prejudice either the prosecution or the defence and must be left to the trial court.”

“Criminal Antecedents, Nature of Offence, and Societal Impact Are Crucial Factors in Bail Determination”

Relying heavily on established precedents, including Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, the Court emphasized that bail must be refused when the seriousness of the offence, the role of the accused, and the societal consequences are overwhelming.

“Judicial discretion in bail matters is not unfettered. It must be exercised judiciously, keeping in view factors such as the nature of the offence, likelihood of influencing witnesses, and the character and antecedents of the accused,” the Court noted.

In the present case, the Court took note of past criminal records of several petitioners in cases involving illicit liquor. It was also observed that none of the accused were licensed to sell liquor.

“The recovery of unauthorized liquor and urea from the houses of certain co-accused, coupled with their criminal antecedents in similar offences, aggravates the seriousness of their alleged acts,” said the Court.

It held that bail cannot be granted merely on the premise that the direct causality of death is not yet medically confirmed beyond doubt.

“Village Headman Accused Only of Passive Assistance Granted Bail—No Direct Role Alleged, No Criminal Antecedents”

Interestingly, the Court adopted a differentiated approach when dealing with the bail plea of Balaram Bisoyi, the village headman accused of assisting in the sale of liquor. Noting that no direct role was attributed to him in selling or supplying spurious liquor, and that he had no criminal history, the Court exercised its discretion to release him on bail with strict conditions.

“There is no material on record to show that Balaram Bisoyi directly sold any liquor. The manner of his alleged assistance is also not clarified. In such a scenario, and given the absence of prior record, his bail can be considered,” observed Justice Satapathy.

The Court directed that Balaram Bisoyi shall appear before the trial court on all dates and strictly comply with bail conditions, failing which the court may initiate action under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

“Where Innocents Die Due to Greed and Lawlessness, Bail Cannot Be Routine—It Would Shake Public Confidence in Justice”

Concluding the judgment, Justice Satapathy emphasized the need to ensure that public trust in the criminal justice system remains intact: “The death of five innocent persons after consuming spurious liquor sold by unauthorized individuals is not merely a crime against specific victims—it is a crime against the collective conscience of society.”

“Granting bail in such circumstances, when investigation points towards a clear prima facie case, would send a wrong signal and defeat the ends of justice,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the bail applications of Pabana @ Prabhakar Sahu, Bapini Sahu, Baya Sahu, Juria @ Rajendra Sahu, Sudam Mallik, Surendra Mallik, Rama Mallik, Purna Chandra Sahu, and Rabi Sahu, while granting bail only to Balaram Bisoyi.

Date of Decision: 6 January 2026