Sparsh Viswakarma Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

Sparsh Viswakarma (In BLAPL No.7715 of 2025) Vivek Viswakarma

(In BLAPL No.7846 of 2025) Lucky Singh & Anr. (In BLAPL No.7856 of 2025) Gourav Mohanty @ Gourav Kumar Mohanty @ Fidu

¶4

(In BLAPL No.8120 of 2025) … Petitioners

¶5

Mr. B.B. Routray, Advocate (in BLAPL Nos.7715 & 7846 of 2025) Mr. S. Sharma, Advocate (in BLAPL No.7856 of 2025) Mr. R.K. Tripathy, Advocate (in BLAPL No.8120 of 2025)

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Orissa

¶8

… Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶10

Order No.

¶11

02.

¶12

ORDER(ORAL) 10.09.2025

¶13

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

¶14

Since these four 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.

¶15

These four bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Chhend PS Case No.97 of 2025 arising out of GR Case No.945 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela for commission of offences

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

punishable U/Ss. 126(2)/ 118(2)/ 109(1)/ 103(1)/ 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 61(2)/ 115(2)/ 296/ 190/ 3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of committing murder of Mukesh Kar and injuring Rushi Prasad Sahu by assaulting them with lethal weapons, along with coaccused persons.

¶18

Heard, Mr. Bharat Bhusan Routray, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.7715 & 7846 of 2025; Mr. Satyapada Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL No.7856 of 2025; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.8120 of 2025 and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

¶19

Bail is sought for to the petitioners mainly on the ground of parity, false implication and absence of specific overt act against them, but the allegations against the petitioners are not only serious, but also grave and in such incident, one person suffered homicidal death and other person sustained grievous injury being stabbed to his belly. Further, there is allegation against the present petitioners except Gourav Mohanty for participating in quarrel and employing/engaging co-accused to kill another person. No doubt, co-accused Aditya Satpathy and Surya Kanta Routray @ Baju have been granted bail, but their implication was only for bailable offences, however, the present petitioners are not similarly

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

situated. In this facts and situation and on going through the materials placed on record, more particularly the statements of the eye witnesses Subham Parichha, injured witness Rushi Prasad Sahu and other witness like Trisha @ Dibyanshini Das & Mahendra Gouda together with disclosure statements of co-accused persons and taking into account the surrounding circumstances in which one person suffered death and other suffered grievous injury visà-vis the role as alleged against the individual petitioners and there being only presence of the petitioner Gourav Mohanty without any specific overt act, this Court while being inclined to grant bail to the petitioner Gourav Mohanty @ Gourav Kumar Mohanty @ Fidu does not consider it proper to grant bail to other petitioners at this stage, especially when the witnesses referred to above are yet to be examined. 6. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners Sparsh Viswakarma in BLAPL No.7715 of 2025, Vivek Viswakarma in BLAPL No.7846 of 2025, Lucky Singh & Anr. in BLAPL No.7856 of 2025 stands rejected, whereas the bail application of the petitioner Gourav Mohanty @ Gourav Kumar Mohanty @ Fidu in BLAPL No. 8120 of 2025 is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as

¶24

deem fit and proper with following conditions:-

¶25

(i) the petitioner shall not contact or threaten the injured and his family members so also the informant and his family members,

¶26

(ii) the petitioner shall not threaten coerce or influence any of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court.

¶27