p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.67 of 2025 Biswajit Ray @ Pintu Tada … Appellant Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another … Respondents Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 24.02.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This criminal appeal in the nature of bail U/S. 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 03.01.2025 passed in TR Case No.17 of 2024 by which the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, has refused to release the appellant on bail in connection with Begunia PS Case No.83 of 2024, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.294/302/506 of IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of the Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Siba Nayak by assaulting him. 3. Heard, Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused p. 2 the record including the photocopy of the depositions of PWs.1 to 7 as produced. None appears for the informant/victim despite being duly intimated as apprised by learned Addl. PP. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the appellant for assaulting the deceased to death, but learned counsel for the appellant takes the plea that since the appellant had suffered fracture of his legs, he cannot assault the deceased, but such assertion of the appellant has been answered by PW7 in cross- examination that the accused sustained fracture injury on both of his legs prior to the alleged incident, but he could walk, climb tree and do cycling in a regular pattern. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the appellant vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record keeping in view the evidence of witnesses so far examined, more particularly that of PWs.6 and 7, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the appellant at this stage. 5. Accordingly, the CRLA stands dismissed. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter for reference. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Designation: Sr. Stenographer