p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Kamalu Gadaba and another (In BLAPL No.13417 of 2025) Lalita Khara and another (In BLAPL No.13379 of 2025) Bhagu Nayak @ Bhagaban Gadaga and another (In BLAPL No.2398 of 2026) … Petitioners Mr. S. Dash, Advocate (in all these BLAPLs) -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL):21.05.2026 04. 1. Since these three 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. 2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Boipariguda PS Case No.251 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.14 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Spl. Judge, Jeypore, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.103(1)/238/ 3(5) of BNS. 3. The allegation against the petitioners emanates from the fact that the deceased Bhima Nayak was a village quack and he was frequenting to nearby village on call, however on 21.10.2024, the deceased had gone to village Gendraguda, but did not return and despite intense search, he could not be traced out. On p. 2 31.10.2024, the informant and others noticed blood stains on a hilly road between village Nuaguda and Gendraguda and subsequently, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered. The informant, who is the wife of the deceased, lodged the FIR suspecting Bhagu Nayak and Baladev Mundagudia to have murdered her husband with the help of others. On the FIR, Boipariguda PS Case No.251 of 2024 was registered, but in the course of investigation, finding the complicity of the petitioners, they were taken into custody and are before this Court in these bail applications. 4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Suryakanta Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners by highlighting the facts of the case submits that there is absolutely no material to keep the petitioners in custody, however, the petitioners are illegally confined on the basis of statement of co-accused Lalita Khara, who had given recovery of alleged weapon of offence like spade and dagger, but there is absolutely no material to detain the petitioners in custody further. He further submits that trial is yet to commence because CE Report is yet to be received by the Court and, therefore, the petitioners having detained in custody without progress of trial may kindly be granted bail. 4.1. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by placing the statement of co-accused Lalita Khara submits that not only the p. 3 petitioner-Lalita Khara has given recovery of weapon of offence, but also his statement clearly implicates the rest of the petitioners for the offences and, therefore, the petitioners may not be released on bail. 5. After having considered the rival submissions and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the materials so placed on record and regard being had to the manner in which the deceased was assaulted and murdered with brutality exhibited in executing the crime and there being recovery of weapon of offence pursuant to the disclosure statement of the petitioner-Lalita Khara and trial having not yet commenced, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners. 6. Hence, these three bail applications of the petitioners namely Kamalu Gadaba and Dasarathi Mundagudia (In BLAPL No.13417 of 2025); Lalita Khara and Khagapati Krisani (In BLAPL No.13379 of 2025) and Bhagu Nayak @ Bhagaban Gadaga and Baladev Munhdagudia (In BLAPL No.2398 of 2026) stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. 7. Needless to say that the CE Report be submitted to the learned concerned Court forthwith and the learned Addl. PP is, hereby, requested to communicate the aforesaid concern of the Court to the concerned Forensic Laboratory. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita