p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2521 of 2026 Raju @ Buti @ Rajesh Kumar Patra …. Petitioner Mr. B.P. Nanda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 27.04.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T.(S) Case No.179 of 2025, pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Talcher, arising out of Pallahara P.S. Case No.375 of 2024 for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 61(2)/310(2)/111 of BNS. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.12.2024, the informant submitted a written report alleging there in that he is a business man and he along with one Shyamanarayan Pandey had gone to Pallahara for collection of pending amount and after collection a cash of Rs.12,00,000 from different businessman when they were returning, on the way p. 2 at about 03.10 PM near Pallahara Shiv temple Chhak, four unknown culprits came and snatched away all the cash at the point of a gun and Bhujali and fled away from the spot. Basing on such report, the aforesaid P.S. case was registered against unknown persons. 4. 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. 5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher by order dated 06.03.2026 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the co-accused Raju Naik has been released on bail by this Court by order dated 03.03.2025 in BLAPL No.1417 of 2025, the Petitioner may be released on bail inter alia on the ground of parity. 7. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case at hand because of he has criminal proclivity. p. 3 8. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State. 9. It is seen from the record as submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the Petitioner has been cited as an accused in the following cases:- “1. Chhendipada PS case No-24 dt 10.1.25 U/S 309(6) BNS/25/27 Arms Act 2. Chhendipada PS case No-550 dt 19.12.24 U/S 309(4)/3(5) BNS 3. Chhendipada PS case No-37 dt 17.1.25 U/S 309(4)/3(5) BNS/25/27 Arms Act 4. Gopalprasad PS case No-02 dt 3.1.25 U/S 309(6)BNS/25/27 Arms Act 5. Kaniha PS case No-342 dt 8.10.24 U/S 309(4)/3(5) BNS/25/27 Arms Act 6. Kaniha PS case No-415 dt 30.12.24 U/S 309(4)/3(5) BNS/25/27 Arms Act 7. Pallahara PS case no-375 dt 22.12.2024 U/S 309(6) BNS/25/27 Arms Act 8. Khamar PS case No-167 dt 5.8.24 U/S 309(6) BNS/25/27 Arms Act 9. Khamar PS case No-217 dt 5.10.24 U/S 309(4)/3(5) BNS/25/27 Arms Act 10. Khamar PS case No-196 dt 10.9.24 U/S 309(4) BNS 11. Kantabania PS case No-06 dt 10.1.25 U/S 309(6) BNS 12. Kankadahad PS case No-244 dt 29.11.24 U/S 309(4) BNS/25/27 Arms Act 13. Nalco PS case No-286 dt 26.12.24 U/S 309(4)/3(5) BNS 14. Parjang PS case No-327 dt 20.7.24 U/S 309(4) BNS/25/27 Arms Act 15. Telkoi PS case No-35 dt 13.3.23 U/S 394 IPC 16. Telkoi PS case No-138 dt 23.6.23 U/S 394 IPC p. 4 17. Telkoi PS case No-157 dt 8.7.23 U/S 394 IPC 18. Telkoi PS case No-67 dt 15.4.23 U/S 392 IPC/25/27 Arms Act 19. Telkoi PS case No-164 dt 25.7.23 U/S 394 IPC 20. Telkoi PS case No-194 dt 9.9.23 U/S 394 IPC.” 10. But on a close scrutiny of the record of the case at hand, it is seen that the basis of implication of the Petitioner is on account of his own confession while he was in custody in connection with Chhendipada P.S. Case No.24 of 2025. 11. Referring to the same, learned counsel for the Petitioner reasserts that the Petitioner’s past has caught up with him and he has been made a scapegoat in the case at hand and that ought not to weigh with this Court in considering the present application. 12. Taking into account the basis of implication in the case at hand, which is prima facie borne out from the record, as noted hereinabove, this Court feels that since there is no material against the Petitioner in the present case, save and except his own confession which is not admissible and the release of the co-accused (Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51), notwithstanding the criminal antecedent, this Court directs the Petitioner to be p. 5 released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin. 13. Additionally, it is directed that the condition shall be imposed by the learned Trial Court to ensure the presence of the Petitioner during trial and also such further conditions which would act as a deterrent from committing any further offence. 14. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Ayesha