IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.13580 of 2025 Chandrakanta Jayasingh …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 23.12.2025 01. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No.701 of 2025 arising out of Bolagarh P.S. Case No.207 of 2025 registered on the allegation of the commission of the offence under Sections109/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/126(2)/140(3)/296/303/351(2)/ 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (C.T.), Khurda. 3. The petitioner had approached the learned Court below praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 09.12.2025 has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 praying for enlargement on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.09.2025 at about 7.30 P.M., a group of ten to twelve accused persons, arriving on four to five motorcycles, allegedly abducted Manas Kumar Jena and Deepak Kumar Parida from Hatabasta Tukuni Variety Store by threatening them with deadly weapons. It is alleged that the accused forcibly took the victims towards Patabandha Dam and demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from them. Upon their refusal to comply with the said demand, the accused persons are stated to have assaulted them with sharp-cutting weapons and beer bottles, and also allegedly used firearms with an intention to cause harm. Thereafter, the victims were taken towards the Baliapatta jungle area, where they were allegedly abandoned. It is further alleged that the accused persons snatched a gold chain and a mobile phone from the victims and extended threats to their lives, including threats to harm their family members by throwing bombs at their house. Hence, this case. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated other co-accused persons have approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.11706 of 2025, ABLAPL No.11902 of 2025, ABLAPL No.12237 of 2025 and ABLAPL No.13059 of 2025. By a common order dated 03.12.2025, the coordinate Bench of this Court has granted them anticipatory bail. Hence, he seeks parity with those accused persons. The petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the State although not able to dispute the aforementioned submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner, but opposes the bail stating that unless the case diary is summoned, it is difficult to ascertain the role attributed to the petitioner. 8. Regard being had to the period of custody from 14.09.2025, the nature of accusation and the fact that the co- accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall report before the concerned Police Station being physically present on last Sunday every month for six months. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each date on which the case is posted for trial. (iii) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (iv) He shall not commit any offence while on bail, and (v) He shall be released on bail subject to verification of similar type of antecedents. (vi) The learned trial Court shall also verify whether the role attributed to the petitioner is similar to that of the co- accused persons, those who have got anticipatory bail. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail consideration for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. In the event, any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution is given liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for recalling the concession of bail. If such application is moved, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna Designation: Senior Stenographer