IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.427 of 2025 1. Subala Sahu 2. Sumanta Sahu …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 07.02.2025 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioners are accused in connection with S.T. No.15 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodala arising out of Polasara P.S. Case No.313 of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 341/294/302/34/120- B IPC. 3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioners relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kodala by order dated 04.01.2025 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. The Petitioners are seeking release, inter alia, on the ground that in the recital of the depositions of P.Ws.8 and 9 though name of Petitioner No.2 is “Sumanta Sahu” has been wrongly described by both the alleged eye witnesses. 6. It is stated that C.W.8 has been examined as P.W.9, who is the wife of the deceased and injured witness and the brother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.8. Taking into account the tenor of the evidence of the material witnesses, further continuance of the Petitioners in custody is not warranted and is in fact punitive. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. 8. This Court perused the statement of both the witnesses. The opening paragraph of the evidence of P.W.9 runs thus: “The Informant Pintu Sahu is my son. I know all the accused persons namely Subala Sahu, Sankar Sahu, Manoj Sahu, Sumanta @ Sukanta Sahu and Kailash Pradhan. The deceased Panchu Sahu is my husband. xxx xxx xxx” 9. It is apt to note here that Petitioner No.2 is admittedly the son of Subala Sahu, co-accused whose bail application was not pressed. The prayer for bail of Petitioner No.1 is thus disposed of. 10. Taking into account that the learned Court is in seisin of the matter, this Court does not want to make any observation regarding effect of the alleged discrepancy in the name on which learned counsel for the Petitioners has heavily relied upon to canvass the cause for bail of Petitioner No.2. 11. Considering the evidence on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application of Petitioner No.2. 12. Accordingly, BLAPL stands rejected. (V. NARASINGH) Judge PKS