Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To IAS Manish Agarwal In PA's Suspicious Death Case
The Orissa High Court has rejected anticipatory bail to Manish Agarwal, IAS & former Collector of Malkangiri district and some of his staff, in a case relating to the suspicious death of his Personal Assistant (PA) in the year 2019. While denying relief to the senior bureaucrat, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh observed –“…taking into account the nature of allegations and keeping...
The Orissa High Court has rejected anticipatory bail to Manish Agarwal, IAS & former Collector of Malkangiri district and some of his staff, in a case relating to the suspicious death of his Personal Assistant (PA) in the year 2019. While denying relief to the senior bureaucrat, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh observed –
“…taking into account the nature of allegations and keeping in view that order taking cognizance for offence under Section 306 of IPC stood the scrutiny of the Apex Court, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners to grant the exceptional remedy of anticipatory bail…”
Case Background
Deba Narayan Panda (deceased) was working as the PA to Manish Agarwal, IAS, the then Collector, Malkangiri (petitioner herein). He went missing on December 27, 2019 while on duty. On the next day, his dead body was recovered from the Satiguda dam site by fire personnel.
Subsequently, post mortem was conducted by a team of doctors. The post-mortem report disclosed the cause of death as ante-mortem drowning and its complications. It also revealed that the dead body did not have any injury or mark of violence.
While the matter stood thus, on November 13, 2020 the wife of the deceased filed a complaint in the Court of SDJM, Malkangiri alleging that on the date of occurrence, her husband went to the residence of the Collector at about 10 AM and never returned thereafter. It was alleged that the then Collector was responsible for death of the deceased.
The SDJM had forwarded the complaint to the police to register an FIR and to conduct investigation as per Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted the closure report holding that no foul play was involved in the death of the deceased and that the accused persons had not committed any offence.
However, the complainant-wife filed a protest petition against the submission of the final report by Police. In the said protest petition, she alleged that the matter was not properly investigated and that the involvement of the Collector in the death of the deceased was being deliberately kept under cover.
Accordingly, the SDJM had recorded the initial statement of the complainant and basing on such statement and other materials on record, took cognizance and postponed issue of process by deciding to call upon the complainant to produce all her witnesses.
Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant whereupon the SDJM directed the complainant to file requisites by an order dated January 11, 2023 and on January 13, 2023, he issued summons to the petitioners to appear before him. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and other accused persons had approached the High Court in 2023, seeking to quash the order of cognizance.
While deciding the quashing petition, a Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra had taken note of the facts and observed that the only allegation made by the complainant against the ex-collector was that on April 4, 2018 he had asked the deceased as to who are the people or projects or agencies who contributed money to the Collector either on monthly basis or on work-to-work basis.
After examining the available materials, the Court had taken the view that neither the medical evidence nor the petitions and statements of the complainant so also that of the other witnesses contained, prima facie, any evidence to even suggest that the death was homicidal in nature.
“What is important to note is, there is simply no allegation which would even remotely link the Petitioners with the death of the deceased. In the protest petition also, apart from alleging that the Petitioner-Manish Agarwal had used his position to suppress relevant facts during investigation, there is no allegation of the Petitioners having caused the death of the deceased,” it had observed.
So far as the charge of abetment to suicide was concerned, the Court had highlighted that even the prosecution accepted that the deceased was upset because of his service matters which was strong enough to push him to commit suicide.
“Whether the aforementioned conduct of the accused persons would amount to instigation or not can obviously be determined from the evidence adduced during trial but not at this preliminary stage. It is to be noted that investigation has not suggested any plausible reason for the deceased other than being upset because of his service matters to contemplate taking the extreme step,” it had added.
Therefore, the Court had modified the charges by striking down the charges under Section 302 and 506 IPC and sustaining the imputations under Sections 306/120-B/34 IPC, as enough materials existed to proceed against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
The aforesaid order of the High Court was challenged by the ex-collector by way of filing a special leave petition (SLP). In November 2024, a Division Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar had declined to interfere with the order of the High Court, which cleared the path for trial of the petitioner for abetment to suicide of his deceased PA.
Earlier this year, the SDJM, Malkangiri had issued non-bailable warrant (NBW) observing that the accused cannot seek exemption from personal appearance as a matter of right. It required him to remain personally present on the first date and to give proof of his identity to the satisfaction of the Court and only then seek exemption from personal appearance during the trial before the Sessions Court.
The SDJM had posted the case to February 28 for execution of the NBW and production of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the High Court seeking a stay of the NBW and also praying for a direction to the trial Court to allow him to appear through an Advocate, instead of personal appearance, as per the provisions of Section 205, CrPC.
After briefly hearing the parties, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi had deemed it apposite to issue notice and to grant an interim stay on the operation of the NBW order till the next date of listing.
“As an interim measure, it is directed that operation of the order of NBW dated 01.02.2025 passed in G.R. Case No.850/2020 arising out of 1CC Case No.20/2020 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M, Malkangiri shall remain stayed till the next date of listing of this matter.”
Subsequently, the ex-collector along with other accused persons filed petitions seeking anticipatory bail against arrest. Advocate Devashis Panda appearing for the petitioners argued that taking into account the nature of allegations and considering the fact that cognizance has already been taken on the protest petition, further custodial interrogation is unwarranted and hence, the petitioners should be protected by pre-arrest bail.
He further submitted that the petitioners have reasonable apprehension that if they appear before the Court below, they will be remanded to custody, inter alia, on the ground that offence under Section 306 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions.
On the other side, Ms. Bini Mishra, counsel appearing for the informant contended that the petitioners are trying to avoid the process of the Court on some pretext or the other, and in view of the dismissal of the SLP(s) by the Apex Court, they ought not be protected by pre-arrest bail.
Court's Order
The Court referred to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Officer v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 414 where it extensively discussed the factors which should weigh in with the Courts while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail.
“This Court is conscious that the judgment of the Apex Court in the Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (Supra) was dealing with economic offence whereas, in the considered view of this Court the allegations in the case at hand are prima facie more heinous,” Justice Narasingh observed.
He also reiterated the observation made by the top Court that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights – safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.
The Court further re-emphasized that just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilised society.
Thus, taking into account the nature of allegations against the petitioners, the order of cognizance upheld and modified by the High Court earlier, which further got scrutinised by the Apex Court, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, including the ex-collector.
However, it granted the pre-arrest bail to accused/petitioner Bhagaban Panigrahi by taking into account the submission that he is aged about 65 years, suffering from cancer and his wife is a psychiatric patient.
Case Title: V. Venu @ Veliseti Benu & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr. (along with other tagged cases)
Case No: ABLAPL No.14482 of 2024 & batch
Date of Order: April 25, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate & Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. Panigrahi, Addl. Standing Counsel; Ms. Bini Mishra, Advocate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 68