Banshidhar Routray Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2026)

Banshidhar Routray Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail granted; bail application rejected. Conditional liberty given to renew the bail prayer if the trial is not concluded within six months; the order is to be transmitted immediately to the learned trial Court, and the petitioner may produce it before this Court to expedite conclusion of the trial.

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to petitioner Banshidhar Routray under S.483 BNSS in respect of ST Case No.97 of 2023 (Banpur PS Case No.418 of 2022) pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha.

Court's answer

Notwithstanding the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner and the progress of the trial (about 19 witnesses including the injured examined), the Court found the allegation against the petitioner serious and grave — the principal allegation being that he attacked the deceased with a vally — and, weighing the nature and gravity of the alleged offences against the materials on record and the evidence of material witnesses including the injured and the informant, declined to grant bail.

Ratio / Principle

Looking at the custody period of the petitioner, he is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within six months hence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, BLAPL No.1299 of 2026 (oral order dated 22.06.2026, Justice G. Satapathy): bail application under S.483 of BNSS by Banshidhar Routray in Banpur PS Case No.418 of 2022 corresponding to ST Case No.97 of 2023 pending before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha, for offences punishable under Sections 294, 341, 323, 324, 302, 307, 354, 354-B, 506 and 34 of the IPC, on the main allegation of the murder of deceased Minakhi Routray and injury to Subash Routray and the informant. Around nineteen witnesses, including the injured, had already been examined though the trial was unconcluded; the petitioner had suffered some incarceration, but the principal allegation of attacking the deceased with a vally lay against him. Holding the accusations serious and grave and weighing the nature and gravity of the offences against the record and the evidence of the material witnesses, the Court declined bail and rejected the application, permitting renewal of the prayer if the trial is not concluded within six months, with the order to be transmitted to the trial Court and producible to expedite the trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1299 of 2026

Banshidhar Routray

Petitioner

-versus-

State of Orissa

… Opposite Party

Order No.

04.

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL):22.06.2026

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

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Banpur PS Case No.418 of 2022 corresponding to ST Case No.97 of 2023 pending in the file of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.294/ 341/ 323/ 324/ 302/ 307/354/354-B/506/34 of the IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Minakhi Routray and causing injury to Subash Routray and the informant.

Heard, Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record including the copy of deposition of PW1 to PW19. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the Petitioner for attacking the deceased with a vally, but in the meantime, around 19 witnesses including the

Page 1 of 2

injured have already been examined, however, the trial is yet to be concluded, but the allegation against the Petitioner is serious and grave. No doubt, the Petitioner has suffered some amount of incarceration, but the principal allegation is against the Petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-a-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record together with the evidence of the witnesses including the material witnesses like the injured and the informant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Looking at the custody period of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within six months hence.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court and the Petitioner is also at liberty to produce the order before this Court so as to expedite the trial for its conclusion.

Signature Not Verified (G. Satapathy) Digitally SignedSigned by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Judge

Digitally SignedSigned by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Priyajit Date: 22-Jun-2026 19:33:09

Page 2 of 2