IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2285 of 2026 Tankadhar Deep @ Shankar …. Petitioner Mr. D. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 24.04.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. Case No.8 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Khariar, arising out of Sinapali P.S. Case No.262 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 302/34 of IPC. 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 BNSS by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Khariar by order dated 07.11.2025 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 13.10.2023 at 11.00 PM Complainant lodged a written report alleging there in that one Jambu Kishor Deep and Jhaja Deep are staying in the village making house on Govt. land. He also tried to stay making house on a Govt. land there. Over the issue, there was dispute between Complainant with them. On 13.10.23 at about 5.30 PM above noted two persons along with Petitioner abused the Complainant holding thenga and threatened to kill him in front of the house of Khageswar Majhi, Debaki Rout, Anur Rout. Out of fear, he called his younger brother Shushil over phone. His brother reached there. However, Tanka deep stabbed to belly of his brother Sushil by means of a knife for which, he sustained fatal bleeding injury and died at Hospital. The occurrence witnesses are Khageswar majhi, Debaki Rout, Anur Rout and Deba Majhi. The complainant also alleged that the Petitioner had contested Sarapanch in the last election and wining to the elder brother of the complainant. Hence, he also threatened to kill him. Hence, this case. 6. This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Petitioner had moved this Court in BLAPL No.3595 of 2024, which was disposed of by order dated 09.08.2024 giving liberty to the Petitioner to renew his prayer if the trial is not concluded within a period of four months. Thereafter, the Petitioner was before this Court in BLAPL No.1990 of 2025 and this Court by order dated 09.10.2025 permitted the Petitioner to withdraw his application with liberty to renew his prayer before the learned trial Court. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2023 and on the ground of long incarceration, the Petitioner seeks release. 8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. 9. On very perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that in the meanwhile 17 out of 40 charge sheeted witnesses have been examined and the complicity of the Petitioner has been prima facie established from the evidence of P.Ws.11, 14 and 15. 10. Taking into account the manner in which the offence has been committed mere long incarceration cannot be pressed into service for seeking release and it is trite that such principle cannot have any universal application bereft of the factual matrix of the case. In the circumstances, as noted above, and the manner in which the offence has been committed, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application. 11. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi