Dismissed¶22

Palus Khadia v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Sept 2025BLAPL/5038/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: bail application; S.483 BNSS; Ss.103(1)/3(5) IPC; murder; sharp cutting weapon; deceased Anurodh Bag; Sason PS Case No. 263 of 2024; ST Case No.75 of 2025; District and Sessions Judge, Sambalpur; co-accused Naresh Munda granted bail; FIR; PW8; prima facie materials; trial going on full swing; X Vrs. State of Rajasthan and another; Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024; 27.11.2024; bail rejected; BLAPL No.5038 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice G. Satapathy; 11.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appreciation of evidence on merit should be avoided at the time of consideration of bail; detailed analysis of the evidence, such as contradictions or the possibility of another view on the admitted evidence, should not be recorded at the bail stage. ¶18

Palus Khadia Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Palus Khadia should be granted bail under S.483 BNSS in connection with Sason PS Case No. 263 of 2024 / ST Case No.75 of 2025 for offences punishable under Ss.103(1)/3(5) IPC.

¶14

Court's answer

¶18

Ratio / Principle

There are prima facie materials against the petitioner: besides the allegation of committing the murder of the deceased, his name is stated in the FIR and has been uttered by some material witnesses as one of the assailants.

¶18

Key takeaways

Taking into account the rival submissions, the materials on record, the circumstances under which the deceased was killed, the role alleged against the petitioner, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in X Vrs. State of Rajasthan and another (SLP(C) No. 13378 of 2024, disposed of on 27.11.2024), the Court was not inclined to grant bail at this stage, especially as the trial was going on full swing.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under S.483 BNSS by Palus Khadia for release in ST Case No.75 of 2025 (arising out of Sason PS Case No. 263 of 2024) pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, for offences punishable under Ss.103(1)/3(5) IPC on the allegation of murdering one Anurodh Bag with a sharp cutting weapon along with co-accused persons. High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Justice G. Satapathy), oral order dated 11.09.2025. Grounds urged included the bail already granted to co-accused Naresh Munda, whose name appears neither in the FIR nor in the evidence of PW8. The Court held that appreciation of evidence on merit and detailed analysis of contradictions should be avoided at the bail stage; noted prima facie materials against the petitioner (his name stated in the FIR and uttered by material witnesses as one of the assailants); and, taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in X Vrs. State of Rajasthan and another [SLP(C) No. 13378 of 2024, disposed of on 27.11.2024] and that the trial was going on full swing, refused bail. The BLAPL stands disposed of; urgent certified copy ordered.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5038 of 2025

¶2

Palus Khadia

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

… Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶10

Order No.

¶11

02.

¶12

ORDER(ORAL) 11.09.2025

¶13

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶14

This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sason PS Case No. 263 of 2024 corresponding to ST Case No.75 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Sambalpur for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 103(1)/3(5) of IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Anurodh Bag by assaulting him with sharp cutting weapon, along with co-accused persons.

¶15

Heard, Mr. Surendra Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner appearing virtually and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record including the evidence of PW1 to PW10.

¶16

One of the grounds under which the bail is sought for to the Petitioner is grant of bail to co-

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

accused-Naresh Munda, whose name is neither found in the FIR nor the material witness like PW8 has uttered his name. Be that as it may, law is fairly well settled that appreciation of evidence on merit should be avoided at the time of consideration of bail and detail analysis of the evidence, such as contradiction available in the evidence or another view is possible on the admitted evidence should not be recorded at the time of consideration of bail. In this case, not only there is allegation against the present Petitioner for committing murder of the deceased, but also there are prima facie materials against him, such as the name of the Petitioner has been stated in the FIR and his name has been uttered by some of the material witnesses to be one of the assailants.

¶19

In such view of the matter and after having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials placed on record and taking into account the circumstance under which the deceased was killed and the role as alleged against the Petitioner and keeping in view other circumstances on record in entirety including the law laid down by the Apex Court in X Vrs. State of Rajasthan and another [Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024] disposed of on 27.11.2024, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage, especially when the trial is going on full swing.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner

¶22

stands rejected.

¶23