IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Bilati @ Suryakanta Nayak (In BLAPL No.12623 of 2025) Jyoti @ Tapas Kumar Swain (In BLAPL No.12712 of 2025) Jagan @ Aditya Narayan Sing (In BLAPL No.13042 of 2025) Haguru @ Ashok Mahalik (In BLAPL No.13378 of 2025) … Petitioners Mr. S.K. Zafarulla, Advocate (in BLAPL No.12623 of 2025) Mr. M. Basu, Advocate (in BLAPL No.12712 of 2025) Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate (in BLAPL No.13042 of 2025) Mr. A.R. Panda, Advocate (in BLAPL No.13378 of 2025) -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP Mr. S.K. Dwivedy, Advocate (informant) 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. Since these four bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Soro P.S. Case No. 758 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1451 of 2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC, Soro, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 126(2)/118(2)/109(1)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of attempting to the life of the doctor-cum-injured namely Braja Sundar Swain by assaulting him with a sharp cutting weapon, along with co-accused and Child-in-Conflict with law (CICL). 4. Heard, Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 12623 of 2025; Mr. Monomoy Basu, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 12712 of 2025; Mr. Jajati Keshari Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 13042 of 2025; Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 13378 of 2025; Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP and Mr. Santosh Kumar Dwivedy, learned counsel for the informant in these matters and perused the record. In opposing the bail applications of the petitioner, Mr. Dwivedy, however, submits that the petitioners have exchanged the messages through WhatsApp after executing the crime and their presence being captured in the CCTV, they shall not be released on bail, since a respectable person of the society like doctor has been assaulted by the associate of the petitioners, which has definite impact on the society. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the CICL for allegedly assaulting to the neck of the injured by means of sharp cutting weapon in the presence of the present petitioners, however, the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and the doctor, who has examined the injured has found one injury of 6cm in length without width and depth, but he opined such injury to be simple in nature. Neither the injured nor the father of the injured, who was present at the spot has identified any of the petitioners to be the assailant. Further, FIR has been registered against unknown persons, but no criminal antecedent has been reported against any of the petitioner except the petitioner- Jyoti @ Tapas Kumar Swain, who is shown to be an accused in Soro P.S. Case No. 459 of 2025 for commission of offences U/Ss. 420/406/294/506/34 of IPC. Right now, the charge sheet has already been submitted and the present petitioners appears to have been implicated in this case on the basis of statement of CICL before the Investigating Officer while giving recovery of the motor cycle pursuant to his statement recorded U/S.23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). 6. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the circumstance of implication of the present petitioners and keeping in view the only allegation against them for their presence at the spot, but the main allegation of assaulting the doctor being directed against the CICL, who is not before this Court in these bail applications and the injured having sustained one simple injury on his neck, this Court without expressing any view on merits, admits each of the petitioners to bail. 7. Hence, these four bail applications of the petitioners namely Bilati @ Suryakanta Nayak (BLAPL No. 12623 of 2025), Jyoti @ Tapas Kumar Swain (BLAPL No. 12712 of 2025), Jagan @ Aditya Narayan Sing (BLAPL No. 13042 of 2025) and Haguru @ Ashok Mahalik (BLAPL No. 13378 of 2025) are allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless their attendance is dispensed with and shall cooperate with the trial . In case the Petitioners fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of BNS in accordance with law, (ii) the petitioners shall report attendance before the jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday in each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six (06) months from the actual date of release from the custody. The concerned IIC shall maintain record the attendance of the petitioners and submit the same to the Court on each month, (iii) the petitioners shall not contact the doctor and his family members in any way or any manner and they shall not visit to the house or clinic of the doctor till disposal of the case, (iv) the petitioners shall not threaten, induce, influence or coerce any of the witnesses including the family members of the doctor acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court, (iv) the petitioners shall not loiter in and around the house/clinic of the injured doctor and they shall not follow him or his family members in any place and in anywhere. 8. 8. The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioners unnecessarily after recording their attendance beyond the time as stipulated. This Court, however, reserves the liberty to the informant and the State to file appropriate application for cancellation of bail, if any of the conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. It is made clear that in such event for being approached for cancellation of bail, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law without further reference to this Court. 9. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge S.Sasmal