IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 1655 of 2026 Rinku Soni @ Musa ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Sushanta Kumar Pradhan, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha .….... Opposite Party Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 23.04.2026 Order No. 01. F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 138 23.05.2025 Kuchinda S.T. Case No.47 of 2025 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kuchinda 310(2) of BNS, 2023 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in Kuchinda P.S. Case No.138 of 2025, corresponding to S.T. Case No.47 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Apr-2026 12:29:50 Signature Not Verified Kuchinda, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Section 310(1) of BNS, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case, as per the FIR lodged by the informant, is that on 23.05.2025 at about 01:30 A.M., seven unknown miscreants allegedly trespassed into the house of the informant at Charbati, broke open the doors, assaulted the informant and other inmates and decamped with cash amounting to ₹2,80,000/-. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Petitioner was arrested on 15.06.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then. It is submitted that the Petitioner is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case without any cogent or incriminating material. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the name of the present Petitioner does not transpire therein. The implication of the Petitioner is purely based on suspicion, which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that no Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) has been conducted by the investigating agency to establish the identity of the Petitioner. In absence of such identification, the alleged involvement of the Petitioner remains unsubstantiated and doubtful. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence available on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to place any material indicating the complicity of the Petitioner. The arrest of the Petitioner is arbitrary and unjustified and appears to have been made merely to show progress in the investigation, without there being any credible material against him. 8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. 9. Without delving into the intricacies of the case or the merits of the allegations and in light of the facts and circumstances at hand, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner should be granted bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case. However, such release shall be conditioned upon stringent terms and conditions, as the learned Court deems fit and just. The conditions are as follows:- i. The Petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on 1st Monday of every month between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.; ii. The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail. iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iv. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court when the case would be fixed for trial. 10. Any violation of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. 12. Issue urgent certified copy of this Order as per Rules. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun