p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2910 of 2026 Dilu Moharatha @ Dillip Moharatha …. Petitioner Mr. B. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 13.05.2026 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No.532 of 2024, pending on the file of learned NGN-cum-J.M.F.C-Rajnagar, arising out of Rajnagar P.S. Case No.395 of 2024 for alleged commission of offences under Section 103(2) of BNS. 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. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattamundai by order dated p. 2 05.03.2026 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. The case of the prosecution is that the Informant while talking with his son (deceased) had overheard that his son was being threatened by the Petitioner along with other accused persons. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since trial has commenced and taking into account the evidence of the witnesses who have deposed, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is unwarranted. 7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the co-accused Rasia @ Rasmikanta Mangaraj and Rama @ Rama Chandra Das who are at all fours with the present Petitioner have since been released on bail by this Court by order dated 16.07.2025 in BLAPL Nos.454 of 2025 & 963 of 2025 respectively and referring to the deposition of P.W.2, the independent witness, which is taken on record, it is stated that the said P.W.2, witness to the seizure and leading to the discovery of weapon of offence, has not supported the prosecution. 8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that taking into account p. 3 the nature of allegations, the analysis of the evidence at this stage is not permissible. 9. Considering the rival submissions, release of the co-accused as noted and the evidence on record, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin. 10. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (V. Narasingh) Judge Ayesha