p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10162 of 2025 Tankadhara Reddy @ Jitu Singh … Petitioner Mr. R.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 10.02.2026 03. 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 Gudari PS Case No.63 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.45 of 2024 (GR Case No.81 of 2024) pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gunupur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.302/34 of IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Rina Kumari Jena. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co- accused Gayatri Lima standing on similar footing has already granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in BLAPL No.12757 of 2025, but the petitioner is languishing in jail custody since long, however, there is no direct evidence available against the petitioner and the case is based on circumstantial evidence, but the main circumstance appearing against the petitioner is p. 2 that he showed the dead body of the deceased lying inside the jungle to the family members of the deceased and that one blade was seized from the spot, which according to the prosecution case is the weapon of offence and such blade being procured by the accused through one Rahul Palaka, however, the doctor who conducted Post Mortem Report while being examined as PW8 has specifically stated in cross- examination that the chop wound on the deceased could not be possible by means of razor blade and in the circumstance, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by referring to the cross- examination of PW4 submits that it is the accused persons has in fact admitted in the cross-examination to have committed the offence, which is evident from the cross-examination of PW4 “I (PW4) do not know why Gayatri and Tankadhara killed my daughter Rina” as asked to the informant and when the trial is going on for the charge of murder, the petitioner being one of the prime accused, 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 murder of the deceased, but right now trial is going on and 15 witnesses have already been examined in the meantime. It is no doubt p. 3 that the witnesses on cross-examination have stated as referred to above by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, but detailed analysis of evidence and meticulous examination of documents on merit should be avoided at the time of consideration of bail application. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the allegation sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in X vrs. State of Rajasthan (2024) SCC Online SC 3539 and keeping in view all the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court, however, taking a different view not to extend parity considers it improper 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 copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter, who shall communicate the same to the concerned Jail for reference. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Designation: Sr. Stenographer