p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3028 of 2026 Bibhu @ Bibhuti Bhusan Behera @ Bibhuti Behera …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Chiranjib Rout, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Jateswar Naik, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 02.05.2026 01. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T.(S) Case No.02 of 2026 arising out of Pallahara P.S. Case No.393 of 2025 registered on the allegation of the commission of the offences under Sections 103(1) of B.N.S., 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.10.2025 at about 11:30 P.M., the informant lodged p. 2 a written report alleging therein that on the same day at about 4:00 P.M., the accused, who is a member of the Udayapur Puja-16 Committee, had brutally assaulted her father-in-law, namely Nityananda Behera. As a result of the said assault, the injured was initially admitted to Pallahara Hospital. Upon deterioration of his condition, he was referred to DHH, Angul, and thereafter to SCB MCH, Cuttack; however, he was subsequently shifted to KIIMS, Bhubaneswar on 11.10.2025 for better treatment. On the basis of the said report, an FIR was lodged at Pallahara Police Station, which was registered as Pallahara P.S. Case No. 393 dated 10.10.2025, and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, the case was converted to one under Section 103(1) IPC after the injured Nityananda Behera succumbed to his injuries on 25.11.2025 at his residence. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in C.T. (S) Case No.02 of 2026, whereby his bail application has been rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about fourteen witnesses have already been examined. The photocopy of the testimony of all the witnesses has been handed over to this Court at the time of hearing. Perusal of the same indicates that all the witnesses have been examined subsequent to the rejection of bail p. 3 order dated 12.03.2026. Therefore, when the bail petition of the petitioner was heard, the trial Court had no advantage of looking into these materials. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his bail plea before the trial Court. It is expected that the learned trial Court shall consider the bail plea on the basis of the evidence available on record. 7. With this observation, the BLAPL stands disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna