p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10289 of 2024 Manash @ Dipu Sahoo … Petitioner Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 15.01.2025 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is the 2nd bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Nuagaon PS Case No.202 of 2022 corresponding to ST Case No.41/165 of 2023 (GR Case No.873 of 2022) pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120-B/34 of IPC, on the allegation of committing murder of one Siba @ Sailendranath Jena and disposing the dead body by burning it along with co-accused persons in furtherance of common intention by entering into conspiracy with co-accused. 3. In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner very empathetically submits that there is no direct evidence available against the petitioner and p. 2 even if the circumstantial evidence is taken into consideration, no offence is disclosed against the petitioner and the prosecution is yet to establish the homicidal death of the deceased by producing the DNA report of the charred body of one recovered in this case even after two years of custody of the petitioner. Mr. Mishra further submits that in the meanwhile, five witnesses including the informant have already been examined, but the evidence of none of the witnesses disclose any incriminating material against the petitioner and the petitioner, therefore, being innocent person may kindly be granted bail, notwithstanding to the awaiting production of the DNA report as called for by this Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Amitav Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that not only the case is based on circumstantial evidence, but also the vital witnesses are yet to be examined and in this case, one of the incriminating circumstance appearing against the petitioner is the last seen theory, which the prosecution can establish by examining the witness namely Jayaprakash Sahu, who has left the deceased in the house of the present petitioner and that apart, the petitioner’s involvement prima facie can be ascertained from the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before his parents and when the trial is going on, release of the petitioner at this stage would allow him to tamper with p. 3 prosecution evidence. Accordingly, Mr. Pradhan prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about refusal of bail to the petitioner by this Court in BLAPL No.6750 of 2023, but thereafter, some witnesses have been examined, however, the trial is going on. True it is that the petitioner has been detained in custody for some time, but some of the important witnesses like Jayaprakash Sahu are yet to be examined. Grant or refusal of bail is always guided by existence or non- existence of prima facie case against a person accused of commission of heinous offences. Further, in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Another [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13378 of 2024] disposed of on 27.11.2024, the Apex Court has been pleased to hold that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc, once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. Further, on the prayer of the petitioner, the DNA report was called for which has not yet been produced before this Court by the State. The present bail application is, however, taken up for disposal on the prayer of the petitioner without awaiting the DNA report. It is also a fact that FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and p. 4 his wife, but the present petitioner and co-accused are facing trial in this case. 6. It is also the settled principle of law that meticulous examination of evidence and analysis of documents on merits should not be undertaken at the threshold of consideration of bail application. However, the Court while considering the bail application has to see the gravity of offence, character of evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, likelihood of accused fleeing from justice and repeating the crime and possibility of the accused tampering with the witnesses etc. Further, since each criminal case represents its own peculiar factual scenario, certain grounds peculiar to the particular case can be taken into account by the Court. However, on perusal of the materials and evidence on record, it cannot be denied that there is prima facie accusation against the petitioner. 7. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, as also the gravity of the offence and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above, this Court does not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail at this stage, when the trial is going on and some important witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to p. 5 renew his prayer for bail after examination of some material witnesses. 8. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Designation: Sr. Stenographer