Bikram Harijan Vs State of Odisha

Digitally SignedSigned by: SIPUN BEHERADesignation: Senior StenographerReason: AuthenticationLocation: HIGH COURT OFORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 14-May-2025 19:42:34

¶21

Ms. A. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meantime, the G.R. Case No.42 of 2025 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Kuchinda, which has been mentioned in the cause title of the bail application of BLAPL No.4513 of 2025 has already

¶22

Page 1 of 4

¶23

been committed to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kuchinda and numbered as S.T. Case No.24 of 2025.

¶24

Since both the applications arise out of one case, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, those are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

¶25

Heard Ms. A Ray, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned counsel for the State.

¶26

Both these bail applications are under section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with S.T. Case No.24 of 2025 arising out of Mahulpali P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kuchinda for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/309(6)/3(5) of B.N.S.

¶27

The prayer for bail of the petitioners in BLAPL No.4513 of 2025 was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kuchinda vide order dated 07.04.2025 and the prayer for bail of the petitioner in BLAPL No.4860 of 2025 was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kuchinda vide order dated 25.04.2025.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners are in judicial custody since 31.01.2025 and they have been charge sheeted for the offences under sections 103(1)/309(6)/3(5) of B.N.S. and the occurrence in question took place on

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

21.01.2025 and there are no eye witness to the occurrence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the main circumstance is the confession before police and leading to discovery of some incriminating articles and therefore, the bail applications of the petitioners may be favourably considered.

¶31

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and produced the case diary and submitted that though the petitioners in BLAPL No.4513 of 2025 are having no criminal antecedent but the petitioner in BLAPL No.4860 of 2025 is having one criminal antecedent.

¶32

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioners, absence of any direct evidence, the nature of circumstantial evidence and taking into account the period of detention of the petitioners in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail.

¶33

Let the petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid cases on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/(rupees fifty thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with such terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper including the conditions that the petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activities,

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

shall appear before the learned trial Court when the case would be posted for trial and shall not try to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶36

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶37

Both the BLAPLs are accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules .

¶38

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶39

Judge