IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3936 of 2026 Mahadev @ Hemanta Puti …. Petitioner(s) Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 14.05.2026 02. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Belpada P.S. Case No.296 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1178 of 2022 in the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh, now the case has been committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patnagarh vide Sessions Case No.22 of 2023 registered on the allegation of the commission of the offences under Sections 302/201 of I.P.C. 3. The petitioner had approached the learned Court below praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 02.03.2026 has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 praying for enlargement on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 5. The allegation against the petitioner, as reflected in the F.I.R., is that the informant lodged the F.I.R. on 31.12.2022 alleging therein that on the said day, an unknown person had called his son, namely Purusottam Behera, over phone inviting him to attend a feast. At about 12 noon, his son left the house but did not return till 5:00 p.m. Thereafter, the informant searched for him and found his son lying dead at Kanut Anipatra. Suspecting that some unknown persons had murdered his son, the informant lodged the present case. 6. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case on 02.05.2023 and the petitioner has already been put to trial. During trial, about twenty witnesses have already been examined. Out of the said witnesses, none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution. P.W.2 has been examined to establish the motive behind the crime, whereas P.W.19 has been examined to prove the circumstance of “last seen”. P.Ws.17 and 18 have been examined to prove the recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement i.e., recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. However, P.Ws.2 and 19, those who have been examined to prove the motive and the circumstance of last seen, have not supported the prosecution case. Although P.Ws.17 and 18 supported the prosecution, Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the said witnesses were the Revenue Inspectors of Belpada Circle and in true sense, they are the official witnesses roped in by the police to prove the recovery on disclosure. Therefore, she submits that the witnesses are planted witnesses, hence, the veracity and the reliability of their evidence are under the shadow of doubt. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State fairly submits that, in fact, none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case as yet. The accused persons had allegedly confessed their crime before the Executive Magistrate, who is yet to be examined. 8. At this stage, Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the said witness supports the prosecution case, such confession would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 9. Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the parties, it could be safely inferred that the nature of evidence brought on record by the prosecution till date does not satisfactorily complete the chain of the sequence of event to prove the circumstances. Without entering into the merits of the case at this stage, suffice it to say that the nature of evidence borne on record as of today, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail particularly in the absence of direct evidence. 10. At this stage, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the State apprehends that once the petitioner will be released on bail, he may not cooperate with the trial and the trial may be further prolonged. 11. Regard being had to the period of custody from 04.01.2023, the nature of allegation and evidence against the petitioner, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till disposal of the trial. (ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (iii) To alley the apprehension expressed by the State Counsel, the concession of bail shall be available to the petitioner subject to his appearance before the trial Court on each date of hearing without fail. In the event of his absence without furnishing any reason to the satisfaction of the trial Court, it is open for the trial Court to issue coercive process to ensure his presence and on the application being filed by the prosecution, the concession of bail granted by this Court shall stand withdrawn. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail consideration for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. In the event, any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution is given liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for recalling the concession of bail. If such application is moved, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 12. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna