IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.990 of 2026 Rabindra Kumar Naik @ Rabi @ Rabindra Naik … Petitioner Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 17.03.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Paikmal PS Case No.167 of 2024 corresponding to CT Case No.18 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Padampur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 191(2)/191(3)/103(1)/61(2)(a)/190 of BNS, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Pinku Kumar Sahu by assaulting his neck with an axe, along with co-accused persons in prosecution of their common object. 3. Heard, Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 4. Mr. Tripathy, however, seeks for parity since co- accused persons have already been granted bail, but after having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for committing murder of the deceased, along with co-accused persons in prosecution of their common object and it is accordingly, alleged that the petitioner had dealt an axe blow to the neck of the deceased, however, it is undisputed that the co-accused who are along with the accused have already been granted bail. Law is fairly well settled that parity cannot be sole ground to grant bail as held by Apex Court in Sagar Vs. State of UP & Another; (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2584. Besides, the name of the petitioner not only finds place in the FIR, but also the other circumstance alleged against him is the recovery of axe pursuant to his disclosure statement in presence of the witnesses, however, the witnesses to the disclosure statement are yet to be examined, so also the informant. No doubt, one solitary eye witness namely Balabhadra Biswal has become hostile, but detail analysis of evidence in a bail proceeding is impermissible. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à- vis the accusation sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner merely because some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail. 5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna