IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2075 of 2026 Bimal Dandsena …. Petitioner Mr. M. Kanugo, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 29.04.2026 02. 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. No. 06 of 2026, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, arising out of Sundargarh Town PS case no. 349 of 2025, for commission of alleged offences U/s- 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS. 3. Learned senior 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 Sessions Judge, Sundargarh by order dated 27.01.2026, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. The prosecution case in brief is that the wife of the deceased, who is also an accused, had a relationship with another co-accused (Subrat Majhi) and the present Petitioner being a friend of the said Subart Majhi, connived with the wife of the deceased as well as her paramour to commit the offence. 6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 13.08.2025 and taking into account the nature of allegations which are based on confessional statement of co-accused as well as extra judicial confession of the Petitioner and since the charge sheet has already been filed, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. 7. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State, inter alia, there is no bar to consider the statement of the co-accused at the stage of bail as well as the referring to the materials on record, it is submitted that the CDR locations which conclusively establish that the present Petitioner was in constant touch with the co-accused, Subrat Majhi and that there is prima facie material which unerringly points to the involvement of the Petitioner. Hence, no leniency ought to be shown. 8. There is no cavil about the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that at the stage of consideration of the bail, the statement of the co- accused can be taken into consideration. In this regard respectfully reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vrs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42. 9. Considering the filing of the charge sheet and the basis of the accusations, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin. 10. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. U.C.C as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya Designation: Jr. Stenographer