IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.9936 of 2024 Bhuban Suna @ Bhultu …. Petitioner Mr. B.K. Ragada, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Mr. R. Pradhan, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 11.02.2025 03. 1. Heard Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant petition under Section 483 BNSS is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.796 of 2024 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Padampur corresponding to Buden P.S. Case No.105 of 2024 on the grounds stated. 3. Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1 and rejection order i.e. Annexure-2. 4. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not played any role in so far as causing death to the deceased. It is submitted that the principal accused, namely, Bhikari Bag assaulted the deceased by means of an iron rod and he made the disclosure before the police leading to the recovery of the same. Except the confessional statement of the principal accused, as according to Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no other incriminating material to show that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the death of the deceased. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel further refers to statement of the witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. who according to him was one of the accused persons but is shown to be a witness thereafter. Considering the materials on record and the extent of participation of the petitioner with regard to the alleged incident leading to the death of the deceased and fact that the death is on account of head injury allegedly at the instance of the principal accused, it is lastly submitted that the petitioner should be allowed to go on bail with any conditions. 5. Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, objects to the release of the petitioner as he is equally responsible for the death of the deceased. 6. Perused the statement of the principal accused, namely, Bhikari Bag recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act him having described the alleged incident and the manner in which, the deceased was assaulted by him with an iron rod to which he led to the discovery of the same. It is claimed that save and except the confessional statement regarding involvement of the petitioner, as disclosed by the principal accused, namely, Bhikari Bag, there is no other incriminating materials on record. In fact, the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not really reveal any of them to be present at the spot. One of the witnesses, in his statement Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclosed that in his immediate presence the principal accused, namely, Bhikari Bag admitted about the assault and involvement of the petitioner and others. In so far as such confessional statement of the co-accused named above is concerned, according to Mr. Ragada, learned counsel, the same is not admissible. However, there has been leading to the discovery of the iron rod at the instance of the said witness upon a disclosure made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by the principal accused, namely, Bhikari Bag. Considering the entire evidence collected during investigation, the Court finds that the principal accused, namely, Bhikari Bag alleged the deceased to have extra- marital relationship with his wife. The involvement of the petitioner was due to the fact that he was called upon by the principal accused and in presence of others tried to stop the deceased, who was on his way and after being intercepted by the petitioner, the alleged incident happened. In fact, the cause of death of the deceased is principally due to head injury. It is also revealed that the offence of weapon to be an iron rod supported by the opinion report of the doctor. Considering the above facts and submission of learned counsel for respective parties, circumstances under which, the alleged incident has taken place with the limited role played by the petitioner and apparently, death of deceased to be on account of head injury with the use of an iron rod allegedly at the behest of principal accused, namely, Bhikari Bag, the Court is of the view that the petitioner, who has been in custody from 25th June, 2024, should be allowed to go on bail with following conditions. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the petition under Section 483 BNSS stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.796 of 2024 arising out of Buden P.S. Case No.105 of 2024 subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur, who shall impose such other suitable conditions besides the following, such as, he shall not cause any harm to the informant and other family members of the deceased in any manner, whatsoever, while on bail. 9. The BLAPL is disposed of. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU