p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 11685 of 2023 Narayan Sahu @ Rupabala @ Naran …. Petitioner Mr. B.K. Ghadei, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K.Mohanty, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 07.01.2025 04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant petition is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 221 of 2022 corresponding to Chauliaganj P.S.Case No. 235 of 2019 pending in the file of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the evidence of a stock witness, namely, Pradip Kumar Sharma @ Raju, the petitioner has been implicated and as such, there is no direct evidence to show his complicity and considering the same, he should be allowed to go on bail on any terms and conditions. By alleging the credibility of the stock witness, learned counsel refers to an order in BLAPL No. 13233 of 2023, wherein, this Court directed release of the accused therein with the submission that the material witnesses in the present case have not been examined and there is no evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner, hence, he should be released. p. 2 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State refers to the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and claims that the involvement of the petitioner is prima facie established and therefore, he has been chargesheeted. 5. Perused the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other relevant documents besides the case diary produced in Court today including the statement under Section Liston 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. The trial is in progress as made to reveal from the report received from the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge at flag-A. Since, it is claimed that the involvement of the petitioner is rested on circumstantial evidence and it has led to the discovery of weapon of offence so revealed from the statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court is not inclined to release the accused at present, however, is of the view that he should be granted the liberty to renew the prayer at a later stage once the material witnesses to the occurrence are examined from the side of the prosecution. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the petition stands disposed of with the liberty as aforesaid. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita