JUDGMENT : A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. The above noted batch of anticipatory bail applications have been filed by the accused-Petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for their release on pre-arrest bail in connection with Rayagada P.S. Case No.208 of 2010, which was reregistered as CID CB, Odisha, Cuttack FIR No.10 dated 05.04.2011, which corresponds to G.R. Case No.132 of 2011, on a protest petition being filed by the Informant against the final form the same has been reregistered as 1CC No.06 of 2024 and now pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada for commission of an offence punishable under Section 120-B/ 302/ 201/ 34 of IPC. 2. Since the above noted bail applications arise out of the self-same occurrence and the Petitioners have been implicated as accused in the self-same case and since the factual background is common, all these applications have been taken up together for hearing and the same are being disposed of by the following order. 3. Heard Mr. J. Katikia, learned counsel for the Petitioners along with other counsels appearing in the connected matters and Mr. Debasish Sarangi, learned counsel for the complainant in all the bail applications as well as Mr. U.R. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the case diary as well as the materials brought on record in course of hearing. 4. Since the bail applications involve a common set of facts, the facts pleaded in ABLAPL No.13154 of 2024 is being taken up for analysis of the factual background of the prosecution case, which is common in all the bail applications. 5. The prosecution story as culled out from the complaint petition bearing 1CC No.06 of 2024, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Jagannath Mandangi lodged a protest against filing of the final form as insufficient evidence under Sections 302/ 201 of IPC vide CID P.S. FF No.1 dated 19.01.2024 arising out of CID CB P.S. Case No.10 of 2011, which corresponds to G.R. Case No.132 of 2011, now pending in the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada. As per the allegation made in the said protest petition, which was treated as a complaint case as indicated hereinabove, one Bhagirathi Mandangi (deceased), the brother of the complainant/Informant went missing on 15.12.2012. Where after a missing report was lodged before the Rayagada P.S. on 17.12.2010. As per the allegation made in the said protest petition, which was treated as a complaint case as indicated hereinabove, one Bhagirathi Mandangi (deceased), the brother of the complainant/Informant went missing on 15.12.2012. Where after a missing report was lodged before the Rayagada P.S. on 17.12.2010. Consequently, the same was registered as Rayagada P.S. MMR No.10 of 2010. 6. The gist of the complaint case, in short, is that on 19.12.2010 an unidentified male dead body was recovered from Jhanjabati River Dam, Rajalaxmipuram, Komarada, Andhra Pradesh. An autopsy was conducted on the dead body on 20.12.2010. The complainant and his relatives were called to identify the dead body and to confirm as to whether the same is the body of the missing person, namely Bhagirathi Mandangi. The family members of the complainant including the complainant initially failed to identify the said dead body as the body of the missing Bhagirathi Mandangi. On 23.12.2010 an FIR was lodged by the Informant, namely, Jagannath Mandangi, which was registered as Rayagada P.S. Case No.208 of 2010 under Section 364 of IPC against unknown accused persons. The local police took up the investigation. After conclusion of the investigation a final form was submitted by the Rayagada Police Station. 7. Thereafter, the case was handed over to CID CB pursuant to the direction of the Court. The CID CB registered P.S. Case No.10 of 2011 under Section 364 of IPC. While this was the position, several litigations were initiated either at the instance of the complainant or his mother in different courts. Eventually, the matter came to this Court in Criminal Revision No.221 of 2024. Pursuant to order dated 05.08.2024 passed by this Court, the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada has taken cognizance of the offences in 1CC No.06 of 2024, which arises out of G.R. Case No.132 of 2011. The cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 120-B/ 302/ 201/ 34 of IPC and an NBW was issued against the present Petitioners by the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada. 8. Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that when the dead body of the deceased Bhagirathi Mandangi was not found or at least the dead body which was recovered from the dam was not confirmed to be the dead body of the deceased Bhagirathi Mandangi despite autopsy being conducted on such unknown dead body and in view of the statement of Dr. N.M.K. Tirumala Prasad, who has been examined as complainant witness No. CW-8, no case is made out or at least no cognizance could have been taken for commission of an offence under Section 302 of IPC. He further contended that the statement of CW-8 confirms the conclusion drawn by the CID CB after investigation. He further submitted that there exists no definite and conclusive material on record to establish either the missing person is dead or that the present Petitioners are involved in the alleged crime in any manner whatsoever. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also supported the submission of final report on the ground of insufficient evidence under Section 302/ 201 of IPC submitted by the CID P.S. in the shape of FF No.1 dated 19.01.2024. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the dead body which was recovered from the dam is an unknown dead body and that the same was subjected to autopsy. Despite such post mortem being carried out by the doctor, it was not established that the body which was recovered from the dam is the body of the missing person, namely Bhagirathi Mandangi. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the learned trial Court should have accepted the reasoning of the investigating agency and that the examination of the CW-8, who had conducted the post mortem, confirms the fact that the dead body which was recovered from the Jhanjabati River Dam is not the dead body of the missing person, namely Bhagirathi Mandangi, and as such, no case should have been registered for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the present Petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further emphatically argued that when the body of the missing person has not been recovered or at least such fact has not been established by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, the very registration of a case under Section 302 of IPC is bad in law. It was also contended that without establishing the identity of an unknown dead body no case under Section 302 of IPC could have been registered and that the accused persons could not have been implicated by registering a case against them despite the fact that the investigation carried out earlier ended in submission of the final form. It was also contended that without establishing the identity of an unknown dead body no case under Section 302 of IPC could have been registered and that the accused persons could not have been implicated by registering a case against them despite the fact that the investigation carried out earlier ended in submission of the final form. As such, it was argued that there exists no prima facie case at all against the present Petitioners. 11. Mr. D. Sarangi, learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand strongly objected to the release of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the complainant at the outset contended that after taking cognizance of the offence pursuant to the order passed by this Court in a criminal revision, the learned trial Court has already issued NBW against the accused persons. On such ground, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. He further contended that since cognizance has already been taken for commission of an offence under Section 120-B/ 302/ 201/ 34 of IPC, a strong prima facie case exist against the present Petitioners. It was also contended that the application of the Petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is to be adjudicated on the basis of the material available or collected in the complaint case and not basing upon the case record of the G.R. Case. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant would further argue that on the basis of the material collected in the complaint case, it is well-established that the missing person namely, Bhagirathi Mandangi’s death is homicidal in nature. Which is established from the correct identification of the dead body which was recovered from the Jhanjabati River Dam and consequential post mortem report submitted by the doctor. Further, laying emphasis on the autopsy report, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the cause of death was due to head injury and that later the dead body was dropped in the dam. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the complainant referred to the evidence of CW-8. He further contended that after the dead body was recovered on 19.12.2010, the Komoroda P.S. informed the Rayagada P.S. about such facts. However, such information was given to the complainant after two days on 21.12.2010. By then, the post mortem was over and the body was totally decomposed. He further contended that after the dead body was recovered on 19.12.2010, the Komoroda P.S. informed the Rayagada P.S. about such facts. However, such information was given to the complainant after two days on 21.12.2010. By then, the post mortem was over and the body was totally decomposed. From the mortal remains, which was nothing but the skeletal remains of the dead body, the deceased person was not identifiable. 13. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the complainant further contended that some photographs of the dead body were taken on 20.12.2010 immediately after the body was recovered from the dam. Such photographs were shown to the complainant, who happens to be the brother of the deceased. It was from such photographs that the complainant identified the body of the missing person as none other than his brother, Bhagirathi Mandangi. After that the complainant claimed the body and performed the last rites of his deceased brother. However, the same was refused by the police. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the motive behind killing of the deceased was his objection to the irregularity committed by the accused persons and misappropriation of the fund of majhighariani temple. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant highlighted the conspiracy that had taken place to terminate the deceased which was carried out as per the direction of accused N. Adinarayana, P. Dillip Kumar and others. He further alleged that the deceased was murdered in the temple premises itself by the accused persons and thereafter the body was disposed of in the dam of Jhanjabati River. 14. To further strengthen the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant also laid emphasis on the fact that the deceased was last seen entering into the temple office. By that time all the accused persons were present at the temple office. After some time the accused persons came out of the temple office, but the deceased never came out of the temple. He further alleged that after committing the crime the accused persons caused disappearance of evidence by dropping the dead body in the river dam. In the aforesaid context, he also referred to the evidence of the complainant witness Nos.4 & 5. Further, referring to the evidence of CW-7, he alleged that the accused persons were seen travelling towards Andhra side in a Bolero vehicle. In the aforesaid context, he also referred to the evidence of the complainant witness Nos.4 & 5. Further, referring to the evidence of CW-7, he alleged that the accused persons were seen travelling towards Andhra side in a Bolero vehicle. Referring to the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the complainant alleged that the deceased has been murdered in a gruesome and brutal manner by the accused persons and that almost all the circumstances taken together establish the involvement of the present accused persons in the alleged crime. 15. Learned counsel for the State, referring to the records and the statement of the witnesses as well as other relevant documents, submitted before this Court that a case is well made out against the accused persons, therefore, they are bound to face the trial in the complaint case. He further submitted that there are enough materials on record to frame charges against the accused persons and on such basis the accused persons are liable to face trial for commission of the alleged offences. Referring to the gravity and seriousness of the allegation, learned counsel for the State objected to the release of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail. 16. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, upon a close scrutiny of the prosecution case as well as the materials placed on record in course of hearing, this Court observed that although initially an investigation was carried out and a final form was submitted, the investigating agency submitted a final form indicating insufficiency of evidence for the alleged charges. However, subsequently on the basis of the protest petition, a complaint case was registered. Thereafter, the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada, after recording the statement of the witnesses, has taken cognizance of the offence. Examination of the record further reveals that earlier the complainant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21412 of 2011 for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.08.2011, disposed of the application by taking note of the fact that a police case has already been registered and the investigation is progressing. Accordingly, the jurisdictional police was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. By virtue of order dated 25.04.2013 passed in W.P.(CRL) No.513 of 2012 the investigation of the case was handed over to the Crime Branch. 17. Accordingly, the jurisdictional police was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. By virtue of order dated 25.04.2013 passed in W.P.(CRL) No.513 of 2012 the investigation of the case was handed over to the Crime Branch. 17. Despite order dated 25.04.2013 directing the Crime Branch to take up the investigation, the Crime Branch did not take up the investigation work. As a result of which, the mother of the deceased approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Writ Petition (Crl) No.169 of 2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.10.2013 disposed of the above noted Writ Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach this Court and with a further request to this Court to entertain the Petition and issue notice to the Crime Branch and find out as to whether the investigation as directed by this Court has been undertaken by the Crime Branch in accordance with law. Finally, a Coordinate Bench in Criminal Revision No.221 of 2024, filed at the instance of the complainant, was allowed vide order dated 05.08.2024 and eventually the learned Coordinate Bench, while setting aside the impugned order passed in 1CC No.06 of 2024 by the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada, directed the said Court to proceed with the disposal of the complaint in accordance with law. It is not disputed by both sides that in the meantime cognizance of the offence has already been taken. 18. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that there are ample materials to establish the fact that a crime, which is punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 34 of IPC, has taken place. However, the perpetrators of such crime can only be identified once a full-fledged trial takes place and after evidence is adduced from both sides. Taking into consideration the severity, magnitude and gravity of the allegation, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the alleged crime is one of a most brutal and gruesome nature. It is also evident from record that although the alleged crime had taken place in the year 2010, till date the trial has not commenced despite of the fact that cognizance of the offence having being taken in the meantime. It is also not disputed that the learned trial Court after taking cognizance of the offence has issued an NBW against the accused-Petitioners. It is also not disputed that the learned trial Court after taking cognizance of the offence has issued an NBW against the accused-Petitioners. In such factual backdrop, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused-Petitioners. 19. Further, taking into consideration the fact that in the complaint case, the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada, after recording statement of the witnesses, has already taken cognizance of the offences and that the case is now ready for trial, this Court directs the accused-Petitioners to surrender before the learned trial Court and move an application for bail within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the learned trial Court shall release each of the Petitioners on bail subject to each of the Petitioners furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with two solvent sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. The release of the Petitioners shall also be subject to the following terms and conditions; i) shall not indulge in any criminal activity while they are on bail; ii) shall not harass, threaten or terrorize any of the prosecution witnesses; iii) shall not tamper with any prosecution evidence; iv) shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless their personal appearances are dispensed with by the learned trial Court in accordance with law; v) shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court without seeking permission of the learned trial Court first; 20. It is open to the learned trial Court to impose any other conditions as would be deemed just and proper. It is further made clear that violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail application. 21. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the ABLAPL applications stand disposed of.