Justice V. Narasingh Orissa HC ANTICIPATORY BAIL Editor's bribery claim on cameracosts him bail
[ High Court of Orissa at Cuttack ]

Orissa HC Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail of Editor-in-Chief Accused of Fabricating Bribery Claim Against Minister

Justice V. Narasingh declined anticipatory bail to the editor of Focus Plus, citing a correspondent's BNSS statement and twenty registered criminal cases against him.

— 13 August 2026 — 5 min read

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack on 6 August 2026 rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Sudhanshu Sekhar Rout, Editor-in-Chief of Focus Plus, who faces prosecution under Sections 353, 196 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case arises from a complaint alleging that Rout publicly claimed, at an Odisha Swabhiman Mancha programme on 12 July 2026, that a Cabinet Minister attempted to bribe him to suppress reporting on textbook errors—allegations the complainant says are false and defamatory. Justice V. Narasingh, sitting singly, found the Section 183 BNSS statement of a correspondent who works under the petitioner sufficient reason to treat pre-arrest bail as an “exceptional remedy” not warranted on the facts.

The Complaint and the FIR

According to the FIR registered at Capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar, Rout made public statements at the Odisha Swabhiman Mancha event alleging that Minister Sri Nityananda Gond had offered him a bribe to suppress reports about errors in school textbooks. The video of those statements was uploaded and circulated on Facebook and other social media platforms.

The complainant denied that the Minister or his office ever made any such approach. The FIR characterises the statements as false, fabricated, malicious and defamatory, and contends that their circulation was designed to damage the Minister's reputation, foster public distrust in the Government, and mislead the public. The Additional IIC of Capital PS registered Capital PS Case No.561 of 2026 on 14 July 2026 under Sections 353, 196 and 356 of the BNS, 2023, and directed Inspector G. Ch. Sahoo to investigate.

The case is now pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, as C.T. Case No.1736 of 2026.

Petitioner's Case for Pre-Arrest Bail

Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P. Naidu appearing on behalf of Mr. R. R. Mishra, argued that even if the entirety of the allegations were taken at face value, custodial interrogation of Rout was not warranted. The prayer was framed on the basis that the allegations were ex facie improbable.

Counsel also pointed to Rout's twenty registered criminal cases and characterised them as a reason why he is an easy target rather than evidence of any propensity. She submitted that some co-accused who had been taken into custody in the matter were subsequently released on bail, and on that basis sought parity for her client.

State's Opposition: Correspondent's Statement and Twenty Prior Cases

Mr. S. Panigrahi, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, opposed the application on two grounds. First, he placed on record the statement of one of the correspondents working under the petitioner, recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Second, he catalogued the following registered cases against Rout, spanning from 2022 to 2026:

  1. Dharmasala PS Case No.217 dated 27.05.2022 — Sections 115(2)/117(2)/120(3)/296/308(3)/351(2) BNS and Sections 25/27 Arms Act
  2. Dharmasala PS Case No.216 dated 27.05.2026 — Sections 112(2)/317(2)/317(4)/317(5)/318(4)/61(2) BNS and Sections 66-C/66-D IT Act
  3. Dharmasala PS Case No.214 dated 27.05.2026 — Sections 115(2)/117(2)/126(2)/202/296/308(3)/351(2) BNS and Sections 25/27 Arms Act
  4. Pallahara PS Case No.199 dated 31.07.2022 — Sections 294/501/506/34 IPC
  5. Ambadola PS Case No.25 dated 17.02.2026 — Sections 308(2)/308(3)/356(2)/351(3)/3(5) BNS
  6. Mahila PS Case No.163 dated 05.10.2023 — Sections 498(A)/323/307/294/506/34 IPC
  7. Mahila PS Case No.126 dated 19.05.2025 — Sections 294/296/356(2)/75(3)/77/79/3(5) BNS
  8. Jagatpur PS Case No.87 dated 18.02.2025
  9. Jagatpur PS Case No.118 dated 26.02.2025 — Section 281 BNS and Sections 181/184/185 Motor Vehicles Act
  10. Laxmisagar PS Case No.360 dated 03.07.2025 — Sections 324(2)/308(2)/351(2)/318(2)/3(5) BNS and Sections 126(2)/115(2)/296/294(2)(a)/356(2)/356(3)/356(4)/351(2)(3)/3(5) BNS
  11. Khandagiri PS Case No.74 dated 29.01.2026 — Sections 296/351/3(5)/85 BNS
  12. Infocity PS Case No.207 dated 19.05.2025 — Section 63 Copyright Act
  13. Sahidnagar PS Case No.123 dated 25.03.2023 — Sections 153(A)/294/295(B)/293/186/195(A)/505(1)/506/509 IPC
  14. Infocity PS Case No.590 dated 14.12.2024 — Sections 352/353 BNS and Section 66-E IT Act
  15. Jatni PS Case No.167 dated 05.10.2023 — Sections 394/323/498(A) IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act
  16. Capital PS Case No.194 dated 19.03.2026 — Sections 308(3)/356(3) BNS
  17. Cyber PS Case No.28 dated 25.03.2023 — Sections 294/323/506/509 IPC and Section 67 IT Act
  18. Badagada PS Case No.198 dated 26.03.2026 — Sections 296(b)/351(2) BNS
  19. Bharatpur PS Case No.459 dated 26.05.2026 — Section 308(6) BNS
  20. Chandrasekharpur PS Case No.716 dated 20.07.2026 — Sections 126(2)/61(2)(a)/329(2)/332(a)/352/296(b)/356(4)/3(5)/308(5)/351(3) BNS

The Court's Reasoning

Justice V. Narasingh considered the materials on record, including the statement of the correspondent working under the petitioner recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, along with the other statements placed before the Court. On that basis, the Court declined to treat the case as one warranting the “exceptional remedy” of pre-arrest bail.

The Court did not engage separately with the petitioner's argument that the criminal antecedents should be disregarded as evidence of targeting. The weight given to the correspondent's Section 183 BNSS statement, taken alongside the volume of prior cases, formed the basis for the refusal.

The bench took care to clarify that its observations were confined to the present anticipatory bail application and were not an expression of any opinion on the petitioner's guilt or complicity in the offence. The Court stated that the accusations against the petitioner must be established independently in the ongoing investigation.

Outcome

ABLAPL No.8997 of 2026 was dismissed. The anticipatory bail application of Sudhanshu Sekhar Rout stands rejected as of 6 August 2026. The investigation in Capital PS Case No.561 of 2026 continues before Inspector G. Ch. Sahoo, and the matter is pending before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar, as C.T. Case No.1736 of 2026.

Bail Defamation Orissa High Court Pre Arrest Bail