p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 3615 of 2026 Dwitikrushna Nahak @ Taru Kalia …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Ray-2, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr. J. Naik, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 15.05.2026 02. 1. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Aska P.S. Case No.411 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1276 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.8 of 2026) registered on the allegation of the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/118(2)/117(2)/109(1)/296/351(2), pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aska. 2. The petitioner had approached the learned Court below praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 23.03.2026 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. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, p. 2 no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 4. The prosecution case as per the FIR is that on 04.07.2025 at 06.25 PM the Complainant Pradip Kumar Nayak S/o. Prakash Chandra Nayak of village Babanpur PS. Kotinada, Dist Ganjam presented a written report alleging therein that on 04.07.2025 at around 03.30 PM he and his brother Himanshu Das were near the liquer shop which is near to SBI, by that time one Taaru Kalia of village Baragaon came there and quarrel with his brother, abused him in obscene languages like (MAGIA). In the meantime, alleged Taaru Kalia threatening to his brother with dire consequence and stabbed six to seven times in the left abdomen by a knife. While his brother tried to save himself by protecting by his left hand, he sustained bleeding injuries. While the complainant went to save his brother the accused abuse him and threatening him and also fled away from the spot. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2026, a comprehensive affidavit has been filed, which is taken on record. Perusal of the affidavit reveals that the petitioner is involved in as many as six cases. The petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2025 and after investigation, charge sheet in the present case has been filed on 31.10.2025. Learned counsel for the State also produced the case dairy. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the injuries sustained by Himanshu Das, the brother of the informant, are simple in nature and all injuries are not in the vital part of the body, rather in the left hand. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail p. 3 on the ground that the petitioner is involved in as many as six cases starting from 2009 onwards and is a habitual offender. 7. Regard being had to the nature of evidence borne on record, the period of custody of the petitioner since 05.07.2025, I am inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 8. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned 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) Owing to the antecedent of the petitioner, he shall physically appear before the IIC concerned of the P.S. between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. on every Sunday for at least six months; (ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till the disposal of the trial; (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each date on which the case is posted for trial, in the event of his absence the trial court shall issue coercive process to ensure his presence and the concession granted by this court shall be withdrawn; (iv) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever; (v) He shall not commit any offence while on bail, and (vi) He shall be released on bail subject to further verification of similar type of antecedents. In the event the petitioner is found wanting for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for p. 4 Ashok cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge MOHAPATRA