IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 12497 of 2025 Bhula Bag …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party(s) Ms. S. Devi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 17.12.2025 01. 1. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Paikmal P.S. Case No. 326 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1517 of 2024 registered on the allegation of the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 142(2)(3)/146/318(2)(3)/ 126(2)/296/115(2)/351(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 25 of Inter State Migrant Workman (RE & ES) Act, 1979, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Padampur. 2. The petitioner had approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Padampur in Bail Application No. 200 of 2025 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 10.11.2025 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for enlargement on bail. 3. 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. 4. The prosecution case, as per the FIR, is that one Dayanidhi Sahu alleged that with a false assurance of Labour Sardar his son and daughter-in-law had gone to labour work by getting advance of rupees one lakh. Thereafter, the informant Dayanidhi Sahu informed his grandson health was not well for which he approached one Sumanta Bag to return back to home. Thereafter Sumanta Bag told for return the advance money as well as vehicle charge but the informant returned only the advance money and due to non-payment of vehicle rent the petitioner along with Sumanta Bag abused the informant and also Sumanta Bag assaulted by means of rapha for which he sustained bleeding injury and treated in Nuapada Hospital. 5. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing BLAPL No. 5420 of 2025 and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2025 directed the petitioner to appear before the court and urge for regular bail and liberty was also granted to the petitioner to raise the points of parity because the co-accused-Paramananda Bag was then already enlarged on bail. Reading of the materials brought on record appears that one labour Sardar is the leader who has been utilizing the present petitioner, Paramananda Bag and Sumanta Bag. The main allegations are against Sumanta Bag and the present petitioner and Paramananda Bag has supported to Sumanta Bag to carry out the alleged offence. Since Paramananda Bag has already been granted bail, the petitioner is seeking parity. This part of the submission made by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner is reflected in the impugned order itself. The learned trial court though accepted that the case of the petitioner is at par with the co-accused Paramananda Bag, however declined to grant the benefit so as to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 7. Regard being had to the nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.11.2025 and co-accused has already on bail, I am inclined to enlarge the accused-Petitioner on bail. 8. Hence, the Petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned 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: (1) The petitioner shall appear before the Court diligently without fail, on every date of hearing; (2) He shall not influence any of the witnesses related to this case in any manner whatsoever; and (3) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. (4) He shall not try to come in contact with the informant. In the event, the petitioner is found wanting for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok Designation: Secretary