Dismissed¶28

Prakash Naik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 May 2026BLAPL/3796/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BLAPL No.3796 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. (decided 06.05.2026). Bail application of Prakash Naik rejected; alleged murder under Section 302 IPC; Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.138 of 2023; S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 before Additional District & Sessions Judge, Athagarh; custody since 10.10.2023; murder on night of 04.10.2023; 20 of 30 charge-sheeted witnesses examined; trial at fag end; no reasonable grounds to believe accused had no role; premature assessment of facts avoided; trial Court directed to conclude trial at the earliest; counsel: Akshaya Kumar Nayak (Petitioner), Gayatri Patra ASC (State of Odisha).

What did the court decide?

The Petitioner's involvement, whether direct or peripheral, warrants full scrutiny at trial. ¶27

Prakash Naik Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.3796 of 2026

¶3

Prakash Naik

¶4

…. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Akshaya Kumar Nayak, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha Opposite Party(s) Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

¶10

Order No. ORDER

¶11

01.			06.05.2026
F.I.R. No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
0138	05.10.2023	Gurudijhatia	S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.138 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,Athagarh	Section 302 of the I.P.C

¶12

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with S.T. Case No.34 of 2024 arising out of Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.138 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Athagarh

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

registered for the alleged commission of offences under

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-May-2026 19:18:55

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Section 302 of the I.P.C, has filed this application for his release on bail.

¶20

4. The brief fact of the case is that in the night of 04.10.2023 while the younger brother of the informant was sleeping in his house, somebody had committed his murder. Soon after the said occurrence, an F.I.R was lodged in the local Police Station. Accordingly, upon completion of investigation the Petitioner was taken into custody. The Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 10.10.2023.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has never committed the murder of the younger brother of the informant, nor had he ever given any threatening to him. The Petitioner is no way connected to the offences alleged against him. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He, accordingly, prays for permitting the Petitioner to be released on bail.

¶22

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the present Petitioner. She further submits that such type of offences is not tolerable in a law abiding society. She also contends that out of 30 charge-sheeted witnesses 20 witnesses have already been examined and examination of rest of the witnesses

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-May-2026 19:18:55

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

is going to be completed soon. She, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this BLAPL.

¶27

7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner’s involvement, whether direct or peripheral, warrants full scrutiny at trial. Granting bail at this stage would risk a premature assessment of facts, which this Court is not inclined to undertake. It also appears that trial is at fag end. Therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner and the stringent punishment prescribed, this Court is of the view that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner has no role in the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence. The prayer for bail being devoid of any merit stands rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to concluded the trial at the earliest possible.

¶28

8. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed.

¶29

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶30

Ayaskanta

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-May-2026 19:18:55

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Prakash Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Ratikanta Rout Vs the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar Zonal Office

Balaram Behera @ Raj Behera Vs State of Odisha

Simanchala Behera Vs State of Odisha

Kapilas Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sridhar Nahak Vs State of Odisha