IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 3091 of 2026 Kathia @ Bhabani Shankar Mahal ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayanta Kumar Majhi, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 29.04.2026 Order No. 01. FIR No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 901 03.11.2025 Soro C.T. Case No.1740 of 2025 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Soro Sections 331(4), 305(a) of BNS 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in Soro P.S. Case No. 901 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 1740 of 2025 pending in Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-May-2026 11:48:08 Signature Not Verified the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Soro, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 331(4), 305(a) of BNS, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the informant, the Deputy Administrator who was in-charge of Store House, Soro lodged the FIR before Soro PS alleging that on 03.11.2025 at 6 A.M., he got a telephonic information from the Night Watchman and when he switched on the light of the new court building, discovered that the padlocks of the grill gate of the building has been broken and there was theft in Sessions Store house located on the ground floor of the said building. After receipt of the information, he proceeded to the spot immediately and found that the latch of the Sessions Storehouse had been broken and the items were lying scattered therein. Some valuables like seized gold, silver, cash, etc., kept in an Aluminum box were missing. Other items relating to NDPS cases, like Brown Sugar, have been stolen from the storehouse. Then he informed the Judge-in- Charge, Storehouse, who instructed him to report the matter at the PS. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is no way connected with the offences as alleged by the Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-May-2026 11:48:08 Signature Not Verified prosecution in any manner. He further contends that due to previous grudge, the informant has foisted a false case against the Petitioner. There is no eye witness regarding the occurrence. The Petitioner has been in custody since 19.11.2025. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner, the stringent punishment provided and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case. The alleged act pertains to theft committed within the precincts of the Court, involving property liable for confiscation. Such an offence strikes at the sanctity and security of judicial premises and is, therefore, grave in nature. 8. Thereupon, the manner in which the accused persons are alleged to have gained access to and removed property from the Court’s locker room, there exists a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, they may tamper with Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-May-2026 11:48:08 material evidence or interference with the custodial safeguards put in place for such property. Hence, the release of the accused at this stage is likely to impede the process of investigation, particularly with regard to the recovery and verification of the confiscated articles, and may result in obstruction or interference with the ongoing inquiry. 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused persons. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected. 10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.