IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2073 of 2026 Bidyadhar Barge …. Petitioner Mr. S.Padhee, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 22.04.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No. 308 of 2023 and now C.T Case No. 10 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Bargarh, arising out of Barpali P.S. Case No. 322 of 2023, for commission of alleged offences U/s. 498(A), 302, 304-B of IPC R/w. Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. 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. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s. 483 of the BNSS by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bargarh by order dated 26.03.2025, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. The prosecution case, in brief is that the Informant’s daughter-deceased married with Bidyadhar Bag- present Petitioner two years back as per their caste and customs. After marriage the husband-Keshaba Bag started torturing the informant’s daughter both physically and mentally demanding more dowry and attacked her by means of wooden stick and weapons causing her death. 6. It is apt to note that the F.I.R was instituted, inter alia, under Section 302 of IPC. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 28.09.2023 and the charge sheet has already been filed under Sections 498-A/302/304-B IPC r/w Section 4 of D.P. Act. Hence, he may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that out of the 29 charge sheeted witnesses only five witnesses have been examined and the said depositions are on record. P.W.1 is the witness to the seizure, P.W.2 and 3 have not supported the prosecution, P.W.5 is the doctor, who adduced the evidence indicating that the cause of death is “suspected poisoning” 9. Relying on the evidence of P.W.4, inter alia, stating that the deceased was carrying a bottle of poison and drank from it, which stood cross- examination, learned counsel submits that further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. 10. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer and submits that during an ongoing trial, it is not desirable for this Court to make microscopic examination of the evidence as adduced. There is no cavil about such submission. 11. Considering the tenor of the statement of P.W.4 as noted above, the bleak chance of early trial and the number of witnesses to be examined, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin. 12. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. U.C.C as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya Designation: Jr. Stenographer