p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.139 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Sahu … Appellant Mr. B.K. Behera-1, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & another … Respondents Mr. C. Mahanty, Addl.PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 17.03.2026 02. IA No. 370 of 2026 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is an application by the appellant for condonation of delay of 51 days in preferring appeal. 3. Heard, Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera-1, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Mr. C. Mahanty, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record, but none appears for the victim despite being duly intimated as apprised by learned Addl. PP. 4. For the reasons stated therein, the delay in preferring appeal stands condoned. IA stands disposed of. CRLA No. 139 of 2026 5. This criminal appeal Under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016 (in short, “the Act”) in nature of bail is directed p. 2 against the impugned order dated 05.09.2025 passed by the learned ADJ-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada in SA Case No. 54/52 of 2023 arising out of Dharambandha PS Case No. 52 of 2023 refusing to grant bail to the appellant for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 302/34 of IPC read with Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of Bharat Majhi belonging to “SC” Community by assaulting him with a Geda(Cudgel). 6. Heard, Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera-1, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Mr. C. Mahanty, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record including copy of deposition of PW1 to PW8, but none appears for the victim despite being duly intimated as apprised by learned Addl. PP. 7. After having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the appellant vis-à- vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the pretrial detention of the appellant in custody since 16.08.2023 with examination of material witnesses in the meantime, but witnesses PW1 to PW8 having not supported the prosecution case against the appellant and rest of the witnesses being not the eye witnesses to the occurrence and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court considers it proper to admit the appellant to bail. Page 3 of 3 8. Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it. 9. Accordingly, the CRLA stands disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge Priyajit