p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.162 of 2025 Trinath Nath …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P. Sathpathy, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 29.01.2025 03. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and State. 2. Instant petition under Section 483 BNSS is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.400 of 2024 of the file of learned J.M.F.C., Parjang arising out of Parjang P.S Case No.279 of 2024 corresponding to Additional Sessions Judge, Kamakhyanagar in CT (Sessions) Case No.177 of 2024 on the grounds stated. 3. Perused the FIR and the rejection order as at Annexures-1 and 2 respectively. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner committed the overt acts under provocation during and in course of the alleged incident and as such, there was no intention on his part to cause murder of the deceased. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel that the petitioner has p. 2 also received injury and the same is revealed from his medical examination report. Referring to the FIR as at Annexure-1, it is submitted that without any pre-meditation, the petitioner and co- accused persons, who are on bail committed the alleged mischief as a means of retaliation, hence, a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC is not made out, though, he stands chargesheeted for the said offence. With such submission, release of the petitioner is pleaded by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for him. 5. Mr. Satpathy, learned ASC for the State produced the case diary and other police papers for perusal of the Court and submits that the petitioner is primarily responsible for the assault, as a result which, the deceased died, hence, he should not be released on bail notwithstanding grant of bail to other two accused persons. 6. This Court by order dated 22nd January, 2025 had grated the liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after framing of charge and today, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that the charge was framed on 8th November, 2024. 7. Gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the materials on record. The statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is referred to claim that as a retaliation, he said to have assaulted the deceased and he himself also received a similar injury, such as, laceration but survived. As it appears from the record, the petitioner’s family and that of the deceased are having civil dispute. It is made to understand that on the date of alleged incident, the deceased was assaulted by the petitioner but also with a participation of two other accused persons. However, as is revealed from the record, the petitioner assaulted the deceased by means of a p. 3 ‘lathi’. The weapon of offence is said to have been recovered and seized pursuant to the statement of the petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The manner, in which, the alleged incident has taken place has been described by the petitioner in his said statement. However, a part of such statement is inculpatory in nature and is not admissible but not in so far as the recovery of weapon of offence is concerned. It is so revealed and as it his understood, on account of the civil dispute, the alleged incident has taken place. The injury which has been received by the petitioner is also revealed from the record, as he was medically examined immediately after the alleged incident. As far as the deceased is concerned, he received laceration wounds and succumbed to it. Considering the above facts and closure of investigation, the chargesheet being filed, the circumstances under which the assault was carried out by the petitioner and other two accused persons and death of the deceased as a result and considering the plea that the over acts was not pre-planned and it all happened suddenly, the Court is of the conclusion that the accused, who is in custody, since 14th June, 2024, should also be released on bail but with stringent conditions. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, the petition under Section 483 BNSS stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.400 of 2024 arising out of Parjang P.S. Case No.279 of 2024 corresponding to CT (Sessions) Case No.177 of 2024 in subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, p. 4 Kamakhyanagar, who shall impose such other suitable conditions besides the following, such as, he shall not pick-up any quarrel or fight with the family of the deceased; shall not cause any harm to the informant and other material witnesses to the alleged occurrence in any manner, whatsoever, while on bail. In case, any of the conditions imposed by the Court is/are violated after release, it shall forthwith entail cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. 10. The BLAPL is disposed of. 11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer