IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Rajesh Tanty (In BLAPL No.5061 of 2026) Nanki @ Raj Kumar Sharma (In BLAPL No.6067 of 2026) … Petitioners Mr. S.R. Das, Advocate (in BLAPL No.5061 of 2026) Mr. B.R. Swain, Advocate (in BLAPL No.6067 of 2026) -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL):02.07.2026 01. 1. Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Brahmanitarang PS Case No.22 of 2025 corresponding to ST Case No.90/247 of 2025 pending in the file of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela, Sundargarh, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.126(2)/296/3(5)/109 of BNS, on the main allegation of attempting to the life of the injured Siba Kumbhar, along with co-accused person by using iron punch and stone. 3. Heard, Mr. Soumya Ranjan Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.5061 of 2026; Mr. Bisworanjan Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.6067 of 2026 and Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in these matters and perused the record. 4. Admittedly the petitioner Nanki @ Raj Kumar Sharma was granted liberty by this Court in BLAPL No.6270 of 2025 to renew his prayer for bail after examination of Ayan Mahandia and Bikash Sonkar and the said order was passed on 29.07.2025, but in the meantime only Ayan Mahanandia has been examined as PW.3 who has not supported the prosecution allegation against the petitioners. It is not understood how long a person can be kept in confinement on the expectation of examination of the witnesses inasmuch as in the meantime nearabout 11 months has been elapsed, but only one witness out of the two witnesses stated in the aforesaid order has been examined. No doubt, learned State counsel opposes the bail applications of the petitioners by placing the statement of Palas Ghose, but it is equally true that he is yet to be examined and the petitioners cannot be held liable for non-examination of those witnesses in this case since they are in confinement. Additionally, the name of the present petitioners do not find place in the FIR and they are in custody since 18.04.2025/19.01.2025, however, the trial is yet to be concluded. Besides, the petitioners are facing trial for offences U/S.126(2)/296/109/3(5) of BNSS. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis the materials placed on record and regard being had to the pre-trial detention of the petitioners in custody and trial having not yet been concluded, this Court without expressing any view on merits, admits each of the petitioners to bail. 5. Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Rajesh Tanty (In BLAPL No.5061 of 2026) and Nanki @ Raj Kumar Sharma (In BLAPL No.6067 of 2026) are allowed and each of the petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following condition:- (i) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless their attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna