Bikram Nayak Vs State of Odisha

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Nayagarh Sadar P.S. Case No.3 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No.4 of 2026 registered on the allegation of the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1)/115(2)/296/3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Nayagarh.

¶17

The petitioner had approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in BLAPL No.18/32 of 2026 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 05.02.2026 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for enlargement on bail.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶21

The prosecution case, as per the FIR, is that the informant lodged a written report before the IIC of Ranpur P.S. alleging therein that her son, namely, Bipin Bihari Bhuyan on 30.12.2025 went to his father-in-law’s house situated at Village Jayamangala Prasad. On 30.12.2025 at about 8 P.M. he got information over telephone that her son was lying unconsciously after taking poison. After that, the informant went to Nayagarh Hospital and found her son was lying unconsciously in the hospital bed and after getting sense he disclosed that he went to his father-in-law’s house to handover a sum of Rs.50,000/- and after taking Rs.50,000/-, the in-laws offered him a cold drink and on consuming cold drink, his head reels and thereafter the accused persons assaulted him for which he became unconscious. The treating doctor at Nayagarh has referred the deceased to Bhubaneswar and during treatment, the informant's son died.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the statement of the villagers as well as the parents of the in-laws of the accused submitted that there was a matrimonial dispute between the deceased and his wife. The deceased with the intention to take his wife back went his in-laws house and since the in-laws refused to send their daughter to go with the the deceased, he threatened to consume poison and subsequently he consumed poison and died. Hence, the FIR was registered against the in-laws of the deceased. The petitioner is the fatherin-law of the deceased and is a first time offender and he is in custody since 04.01.2026.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶24

Regard being had to the nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.01.2026 and charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

taken under Section 108/3(5) of BNS, 2023 by the learned SDJM, Nayagarh on 03.04.2026, I am inclined to enlarge the accused-Petitioner on bail.

¶27

Hence, the Petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:

¶28

(1) The petitioner shall appear before the Court diligently without fail, on every date of hearing;

¶29

(2) He shall not influence any of the witnesses related to this case in any manner whatsoever; and

¶30

(3) He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶31

In the event, the petitioner is found wanting for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit.

¶32