p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.11353 of 2025 Bikash Nayak @ Naik … Petitioner Mr. S.K. Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 13.01.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Maitrivihar PS Case No.439 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.1731 of 2024 and TR No.18 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Special Judge, Bargarh for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.332(b)/ 70(1)/ 394(4) r/w Sec.3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of committing gang rape upon the victim and committing robbery from her. 3. In the course of hearing Mr. Subrat Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner without disputing the identification of the petitioner in TI parade submits that the TI report has no sanctity since immediate after the arrest of the petitioner, his photo was telecasted and thereby, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody merely because of his identification p. 2 in the TI parade. Further Mr. Nayak, submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2024, but in the meantime, trial has commenced, however, the victim is yet to be examined and therefore, taking into account the custody period of the petitioner, he may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. PP submits that not only the petitioner has been identified in TI parade, but also there is prima facie involvement of the petitioner in this case and therefore, the petitioner being found to have committed gang rape upon the victim, along with co-accused persons, his bail application may kindly be rejected. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for committing gang rape upon the victim and robbery from her and the petitioner has been identified in TI parade. No doubt the identification of the petitioner has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the same is the matter of trial and the victim is yet to be examined in this case. In that view of the matter, especially when the victim is yet to be examined in the trial and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials collected in support of the allegation against the petitioner and last but not the least, the p. 3 examination of the victim being awaited in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of the order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna