IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1656 of 2026 Sundar Swain …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Nityananda Mohapatra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 23.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in Loisinga P.S. Case No.136 of 2022, corresponding to Sessions Case No.98 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balangir, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 302/34, has filed this petition for his release on bail. F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 136 01.05. 2022 Loisinga S.C. Case No.98 of 2022, pending before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir. 302/307/ 325/326/ 34 of the IPC Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Apr-2026 12:29:50 Signature Not Verified 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.05.2022, the informant lodged a written FIR alleging that on the night of 30.04.2022 at about 10:30 p.m., the accused persons, including the present Petitioner, assaulted the deceased Kilu @ Rupka Hanuman, causing grievous injuries. The injured was initially shifted to CHC Loisingha and thereafter to BBMCH, Balangir, where he succumbed to the injuries on 01.05.2022 at about 01:00 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner based on the FIR and materials collected during investigation. It is further submitted that out of 21 charge-sheet witnesses, 12 have already been examined, and the sole eyewitness is the injured himself. The Petitioner has remained in judicial custody for more than four years and the trial is yet to conclude. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, contending that the allegations against the Petitioner are grave and serious in nature involving a homicidal death. It is further submitted that material witnesses are yet to be examined and releasing the Petitioner at this stage may adversely affect the trial. 7. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the case record, this Court finds that the allegations against the Petitioner pertain to a serious offence resulting in the death of the victim. The nature of accusation, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the gravity of the offence weigh against the grant of bail. 8. Although it is submitted that the Petitioner has remained in custody for a considerable period and some witnesses have already been examined, this Court is of the view that material evidence is yet to be adduced and the trial is still in progress. 9. In such circumstances and considering the gravity of the offence as well as the stage of the trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun