Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 18-09-2018 in case of petitioner name The State of Orissa vs Mahimananda Mishra
| |

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in High-Profile Murder Case: The State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra

On 18th September 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in the case of The State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra. The case involved a sensational murder orchestrated due to business rivalry, leading to an extensive legal battle over the grant of bail to the accused.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the **Orissa High Court**, which had granted bail to the accused, stating that the High Court had failed to consider the **gravity of the offense, the accused’s influence, and the possibility of witness tampering**.

Background of the Case

The case arose from **FIR No. 180/2016**, registered at the **Paradeep Police Station, Orissa**, concerning the murder of **Mahendra Swain**, the **Branch Manager of Seaways Shipping and Logistics Limited**. The murder took place on **26th October 2016**, when assailants hurled bombs at his vehicle and subsequently fired indiscriminately, leading to his death.

The case was driven by a bitter **business rivalry** between the deceased’s company and **Orissa Stevedores Limited**, owned by the **prime accused, Mahimananda Mishra**. According to the prosecution, Mishra had issued **direct death threats** to Swain, and he fled to **Thailand** before being deported and arrested.

Key Legal Issues Considered

The Supreme Court examined two primary questions:

  • Was the **Orissa High Court justified in granting bail** to Mahimananda Mishra?
  • Did the **investigation present prima facie evidence** of Mishra’s involvement in the conspiracy?

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Orissa)

The State of Orissa, through its counsel, presented the following arguments:

  • The accused was the **kingpin of the conspiracy**, as revealed in the investigation.
  • Mishra had **financially facilitated the murder**, making advance payments to the assassins.
  • He **fled India to Thailand** and was only brought back due to a **Look Out Circular (LOC)**.
  • His **business influence and wealth** made him a serious threat to witnesses.

Arguments by the Respondent (Mahimananda Mishra)

The accused, **Mahimananda Mishra**, countered with the following defenses:

  • The **FIR was based on suspicion**, with no direct evidence linking him to the crime.
  • The **Orissa High Court had already granted bail**, and there was no reason to interfere.
  • He had **not tampered with any evidence** or influenced witnesses after being released.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising **Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar**, carefully analyzed the evidence and the High Court’s reasoning.

On the Orissa High Court’s decision to grant bail:

“The High Court has failed to appreciate several crucial factors that indicate that granting bail to the accused was highly inappropriate.”

On the risk of witness tampering:

“Since the accused is a powerful businessman, there is a reasonable apprehension that he might tamper with the ongoing investigation and intimidate witnesses.”

On the seriousness of the charges:

“The charge sheet reveals prima facie evidence of a criminal conspiracy to murder. Such grave offenses cannot be taken lightly, and granting bail in such cases could undermine justice.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

  • The Orissa High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mahimananda Mishra was **set aside**.
  • The accused was **ordered to be taken into custody immediately**.
  • The trial court was directed to ensure **protection of witnesses** from any intimidation.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for **criminal jurisprudence and bail jurisprudence** in India:

  • Strict scrutiny of bail in heinous offenses: Courts must consider **public safety and the gravity of the crime** before granting bail.
  • Influence of the accused matters: Wealth and power **cannot be used to manipulate the legal system**.
  • Judicial review of High Court orders: The Supreme Court **has the authority to cancel bail** if it deems the lower court’s decision erroneous.

This judgment serves as a critical precedent ensuring that **accused individuals in serious criminal cases do not misuse their freedom to derail investigations or intimidate witnesses**.


Petitioner Name: The State of Orissa.
Respondent Name: Mahimananda Mishra.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: Orissa.
Judgment Date: 18-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The State of Orissa vs Mahimananda Mishra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts