IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 3455 of 2026 Ranjit @ Jatia Mohanta & Anr. ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Durga Prasad Pattanaik, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 05.05.2026 Order No. 01. FIR No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 123 17.12.2024 Thakurmunda S.T. Case No.21 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karanjia Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-May-2026 19:36:13 Signature Not Verified p. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioners being in custody in Thakurmunda P.S. Case No. 123 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. Case No.21 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karanjia, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 103(1),238,3(5) of BNS, have filed this petition for their release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 17.12.2024 at 10.30 A.M. the informant lodged a written report before the OIC, Thakurmunda P.S., alleging that her father, named Bhadru Mohanta (Kanda), had been to Kendijiani weekly hata yesterday at about 4 P.M. She had talked with her father at about 4.30 P.M. On 17.12.2024 at about 8 A.M., she got information that some unknown culprits had committed murder of her father and burnt him in a straw fire and threw at Kendujiani back side weekly hata. Based on the written report, the OIC, Thakurmunda P.S., registered P.S. Case No.123 of 2024. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are not named in the FIR. The FIR was registered against unknown persons. He further contends that the Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-May-2026 19:36:13 Signature Not Verified p. 3 Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Six witnesses have already been examined in this case, but there is no evidence regarding the involvement of the present Petitioners. The Petitioners are in custody since 19.12.2024. Hence, he submits that the Petitioners 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 submission made, this Court is of the view that the Petitioners’ involvement is only last seen theory and nobody had seen the Petitioners while committing the crime. The Petitioners’ role can only be established through trial. Hence, it is not proper to keep the Petitioners in custody under suspicious. Accordingly, without going into the merit of the case and based on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that:- i. The Petitioners shall appear before the local Police Station on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 A.M. to 12.00 P.M. till conclusion of the trial.; Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-May-2026 19:36:13 p. 4 ii. The Petitioners shall appear before the learned court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of the case; iii. The Petitioners shall not indulge themselves in any criminal offence while on bail. iv. The Petitioners shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner. 8. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.