CRLA No.146 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.146 of 2025 (In the matter of application U/S.14-(A)(2) of SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. Santosh Behera …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent For Appellant : Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP Mr. A.C. Behera, Advocate (informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:24.07.2026(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This criminal appeal in nature of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016 (in short, “the Act”) is directed against the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed in CT Case No.209 of 2024 by which the learned PO, Special Court under SC & ST (PoA) Act, Cuttack, has refused to grant bail to the appellant in connection CRLA No.146 of 2025 with Khuntuni PS Case No.186 of 2024 for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.126(2)/ 296/ 117(2)/118(2)/109/103/3(5) of BNS r/w Sec.3(1)(r) (s)(2)(v)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Suryakanta Samal and injuring Sidhartha Behera and Sanjay Behera by assaulting them with pointed sharp cutting weapon by taking advantage of their caste as Scheduled Caste. 2. In the course of hearing Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena, learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court through the deposition of the material witnesses submits that although there appears allegation against the appellant-Deepak Behera for committing murder of the deceased, but there is no such allegation against the appellant- Santosh Behera and the appellant-Santosh Behera being an innocent person and having detained in custody for substantial period, he may kindly be granted bail. On the other hand, Mr. Arjuna Charana CRLA No.146 of 2025 Behera, learned counsel for the informant submits that not only Santosh Behera has stabbed the injured, but also he has accompanied other co- accused persons to commit murder of the deceased and therefore, the appellant being prima facie liable for murder and attempt to murder of two innocent persons, his bail application may kindly be rejected. On the other hand, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP by placing the statement of eye witness Rabindra Samal prays to reject the bail application of the appellant. 3. After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears not only allegation against the appellant for committing murder of the deceased, but also injuring the injured Sidhartha Behera, however, the trial is going on. This is a sensational issue in the village because two communities were at loggerheads and this Court entertains reasonable apprehension that in the event of enlargement of the appellant on bail, there would be law and order situation in the village. In such view CRLA No.146 of 2025 of the matter and taking into account the materials so placed on record keeping in view the evidence of witnesses, more particularly that of PW.3 & 5, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the appellant at this stage. 4. Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands rejected. Accordingly, the CRLA stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th day of July, 2026/Jayakrushna