Rajendra Seth @ Dablu Vs State of Odisha

Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Puintala PS Case No.374 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No.2053 of 2024 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Balangir, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.103(1)/ 61(2)/ 238/ 127(2)/ 140(1)/ 351(3)/ 3(5) of BNS r/w Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing double murder of Md. Javed

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

and Palak Mishra by slitting their throat with a knife after abducting and confining them pursuant to a conspiracy with other co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention and possessing fire arms.

¶19

Heard, Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.1358 of 2025; Mr. Chandan Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing virtually in BLAPL No.2673 of 2025 and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

¶20

4.1. In emphasizing his contention, Mr. Mishra submits that the implication of the petitioner Rajendra Seth @ Dablu is only on the basis of confession of coaccused, which is inadmissible in the eye of law and the materials available on record neither disclose the presence of the petitioner at the spot nor his participation in the crime and the only allegation against him is for arranging vehicle/motor cycles for the coaccused persons and the petitioner, therefore, having not participated in the crime and detained in custody for a substantial period with submission of charge sheet in the meantime, may kindly be granted bail.

¶21

4.2. Mr. Chandan Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioners- Pappu @ Rajeev Goutam and Ashutosh Kumar Goutam @ Bablu Killo echoing the submissions of Mr. Mishra prays to grant bail to the petitioners on the ground of their implication on the basis of confession of co-accused.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

It is no doubt advanced for the petitioners that their implication is only on the basis of confession of coaccused before Police, which is inadmissible in the eye of law, but the materials placed on record allegedly reveal about implication of the petitioners in this case on the basis of materials collected by extensive use of technology in the form of electronic evidence with necessary certification as required under law and such electronic evidence are allegedly collected through surveillance of CCTV, CDR, SDR, IPDR, CAF of mobiles analysis and mobile locations of the petitioners and coaccused persons, which are of course subject to trial. Besides, there was alleged recovery of fire arms from the possession of the petitioner-Rajendra Seth @ Dablu. 6. In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-a-vis the allegation sought to be brought against the petitioners and the materials collected in support thereof and keeping in view the severity of allegations and the circumstance under which two persons had been killed and thrown in an isolated place near a village and its impact on society and the punishments provided for the offences and regard being had to the role as alleged against the petitioners and there being reasonable chance of tampering of evidence of the witnesses by these petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

of the petitioners at this stage, when the trial is yet to commence.

¶26

Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Rajendra Seth @ Dablu in BLAPL No.1358 of 2025 and Pappu @ Rajeev Goutam, Ashutosh Kumar Goutam @ Bablu Killo in BLAPL No.2673 of 2025 stands rejected.

¶27

Accordingly, these BLAPL Nos.1358 and 2673 of 2025 stand disposed of.

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

¶29

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶30

Subhasmita

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Aug-2025 15:13:18

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Rajendra Seth @ Dablu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Seth @ Dablu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagal Rameya @ N. Ramaya Vs State of Odisha

Anil Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Rajakishor Sundaray @ Rajakishore Sundaray Vs State of Odisha

Satyabrata Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Swain Vs State of Odisha