p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.543 of 2026 Sudarsan Nayak … Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Another … Opposite Parties Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 09.03.2026 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is an application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with with Satyabadi PS Case No.355 of 2022 corresponding to ST Case No.40/541 of 2023 (G.R. Case No.2574 of 2022) pending in the file of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147/ 148/ 294/ 323/ 324/ 326/ 307/ 302/ 506/ 149 of IPC, on the allegation of committing rioting being armed with deadly weapons along with co-accused persons and attacking the deceased and injured by such weapons in prosecution of their common object and as a result of such assault, one person namely Indramani Panda died and one person namely Bijay Panda suffered injuries. Page 2 of 3 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Sangram Keshari Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner was not present at the spot, which is evident from the RTI information obtained by the petitioner, but the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and kept behind bar and, therefore, the petitioner having not present at the scene of occurrence, may kindly be granted bail. 3.1 On the other hand, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP by placing the evidence of PW.2, 7 & 8 submits that not only the present petitioner was present at the scene of the occurrence, but also he was armed with iron rod at the relevant time and thereby, the allegation against the petitioner being prima facie found to be true and he having participated in the crime, his bail application may kindly be rejected. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for committing murder of the deceased, but the plea of alibi has been taken by the petitioner, however, some of the witnesses such as PW.2, 7 & 8 in their evidence have allegedly uttered the name of the petitioner to be present at the scene of occurrence being armed with iron rod. Be that as it may, law is fairly well settled that detail and meticulous analysis of evidence is impermissible at p. 3 the stage of consideration of bail, but only prima facie case has to be seen. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials so far collected and keeping in view the evidence of witnesses PWs. 1-20 already examined in this case and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety including murder of one person with critical injuries to another person, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Hence the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the Court in seisin over the matter for reference. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna