p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 1771 of 2026 1. Sarathi Santa 2. Muguri Santa @ Mugiri Santa 3. Paiku Santa …. Petitioners Mr. U. Barik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 04.05.2026 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioners are accused in connection with C.T. Case No.34 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Umerkote, arising out of Jharigaon P.S. Case No.54 of 2024 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 302/201/120-B/342/34 of IPC read with Section 4(2) of OPWH Act. 3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court. Page 2 of 5 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the BNSS by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Umerkote, Dist.-Nabarangpur by order dated 13.02.2026 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 11.03.2026 at about 12:30 PM, the informant lodged a written report at the Police Station alleging therein that her mother, Smt. Raibari Santa, her grandmother, Smt. Dambai Santa, her sister-in-law, Smt. Radama Santa, and four number of children were residing in their family at village Kenduguda. It was alleged that the villagers always blamed her mother of practicing witchcraft and, on that pretext, often picked quarrels with her. The informant, though married and residing at village Junapani (Godgoda), used to visit her parental home regularly. It was further stated that approximately eight days prior to the occurrence, her mother had reported at Jharigaon Police Station regarding similar allegations of harassment by the villagers. The matter was, however, amicably settled at that time. The informant further alleged that on 07.03.2024, during daytime, while she along with her mother, grandmother and her sister-in-law were present in their house, the p. 3 accused persons, namely Sarathi Santa, his wife Smt. Kajall Santa, Muguri Santa, his wife Smt. Champa Santa, Lakhi Santa, Palladu Santa, and Matiri Santa, trespassing into their house forcibly dragged her mother out by holding her hands and assaulted her, and took her away towards the house of Muguri Santa. Due to fear, the informant and the other family members did not intervene or follow them. From that day onwards, there was no information regarding the whereabouts of her mother. On 11.03.2024, the informant came to know that the accused persons had allegedly killed her mother and buried the body at an unknown place near the village. Hence, she reported the same, on the basis of which the aforementioned PS case was registered. 6. This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Petitioners were before this Court in BLAPL 4994 of 2024, which was taken up for consideration along with co-accused Champa Santa and Kajali @ Padma Santa in BLAPL No.4823 of 2024. By common order dated 20.09.2024, while allowing the prayer of the Petitioners (Champa Santa and Kajali @ Padma Santa) in BLAPL No.4823 of 2024, this Court was not inclined to entertain the application of the present Petitioners (BLAPL No.4994 of 2024). p. 4 7. Thereafter, the Petitioners again moved this Court in BLAPL No.4936 of 2025 and the same was disposed of by order dated 11.09.2025 giving liberty to the Petitioners to withdraw and renew their prayer after examination of Butuli Santa, the daughter of the deceased Roibari. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the evidence of the said Butuli, examined as P.W.15, that she has not supported the prosecution and taking into account the release of the co-accused, the Petitioner may be released on bail. 9. It is his further submission that since Petitioners have their home and hearth within the jurisdiction of the Court in seisin, there is no scope of their absconding and no scope to influence the witnesses. 10. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State, referring to the very evidence of P.W.15, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, in as much as, it is submitted that though P.W.15 has been declared hostile, she has supported the prosecution in material particulars and referring to the time tested principle that merely because when witnesses has been declared hostile her evidence get wiped out, opposes the prayer for release. So far as the release of the co- p. 5 accused is concerned, referring to the order of this Court, it is submitted that since the said Petitioners were ladies, the same weighed with this Court in directing their release. Hence, that cannot be pressed into service in the case at hand, to claim parity. 11. This court perused the evidence of P.W.15, the daughter of the deceased as well as the evidence of P.W.11, relied on by the learned counsel for the State. 12. On perusal of the same, this Court directs the Petitioners to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin so as to ensure their presence during trial. 13. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 14. UCC as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi