p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK S. Sibaram Reddy @ Kalia (In BLAPL No.12627 of 2025) B. Subrata Reddy @ B. Subrat Reddy @ Sipun (In BLAPL No.13274 of 2025) … Petitioners Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate (in BLAPL No.12627 of 2025) Mr. A.K. Patra, Advocate (in BLAPL No.13274 of 2025) -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 18.12.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are taken up together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Hinjili PS Case No.836 of 2024 corresponding to ST Case No.31 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.103/61(2)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of committing murder of K. Rajendra Reddy by slitting his throat, along with co-accused persons pursuant to a conspiracy. Page 2 of 3 4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.12627 of 2025 submits that there is absolutely no material against the petitioner, but his implication in this case is only on the basis of confession of co-accused, which is inadmissible in the eye of law and, therefore, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail. 4.1. In echoing the submission of Mr. Rout, Mr. Amit Kumar Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.13274 of 2025 submits that the petitioner is renewing his prayer for bail on the changed circumstance of examination of the witness K. Tuna Reddy, but no material having surfaced in the evidence of such material witness, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail. 4.2. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioners by contending inter-alia that not only there is allegation against the petitioner, but also the material witnesses namely Mithun Das and Laxman Das are yet to be examined and, therefore, the bail application of the petitioners may kindly be rejected. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for committing murder of the deceased K. Rajendra Reddy, but the bail application of the petitioner-B. Subrata Reddy @ B. Subrat Reddy @ Sipun was rejected by this Court on 19.08.2025 in BLAPL No.7793 of 2025, however, there is no material p. 3 change in circumstance in the meantime. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW-16 discloses about recovery of the Motorcycle of the petitioner-B. Subrata Reddy @ B. Subrat Reddy @ Sipun nearby the spot of occurrence. It is not disputed that witnesses to disclosure statement namely Mithun Das and Laxman Das, are yet to be examined. Right now, the trial is going on and as per the submission, 17 witnesses have already been examined in the meantime. In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the materials collected in support of the allegation against the petitioners and taking into account the homicidal death of the deceased and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in X Vrs. State of Rajasthan; (2024) SCC Online SC 3539, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners. 6. Hence, the bail applications of the petitioners S. Sibaram Reddy @ Kalia (In BLAPL No.12627 of 2025) and B. Subrata Reddy @ B. Subrat Reddy @ Sipun (In BLAPL No.13274 of 2025) stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Designation: Sr. Stenographer