IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.884 of 2026 Papu @ Rashmi Ranjan Behera @ Rout … Petitioner Mr. G.R. Dhal, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 12.03.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Air Field PS Case No.354 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.940 of 2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC-I, Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.126(2)/ 351(3)/ 109/ 118(2)/ 296/ 3(5) of the BNS r/w Sec.3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act and Sec.9(B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act, on the main allegation of attempting to the life of the injured persons by hurling six crude bombs causing blast injuries to them (injured persons). 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Gyana Ranjan Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature and there is in fact no direct allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner having already detained in custody, may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP by taking this Court through the impugned order submits that not only the petitioner has allegedly hurled six crude bombs, but the said bomb hit the injured persons who had sustained multiple blast injuries and thereby, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for hurling bombs at Bilasini Mohanty and her husband Bagula Mohanty, who had allegedly sustained multiple blast injuries as per the impugned order, but when the bail application of the petitioner was moved before the learned District Court, no charge-sheet was submitted then. It is also found from the impugned order that the present petitioner is having past criminal record. In such view of the matter 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 placed on record and keeping in view the multiple blast injuries sustained by the injured persons, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 6. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of the order be immediately communicated to the learned trial Court. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna