Orissa High Court
Mr. D. Panda vs State Of Odisha … Opposite Party on 30 June, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Jayasen Padhi
(In BLAPL No.5686 of 2025)
Harihar Mohanty
(In BLAPL No.145 of 2025) ... Petitioners
Mr. D. Panda, Advocate
(for all the Petitioners)
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
30.06.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Since these two bail applications arise out of one
and same case record, the same are taken up together
for disposal.
3. This is an application U/S.483 BNSS by the
petitioners for grant of bail in connection with
Purushottampur PS Case No.314 of 2022 arising out of ST
No.29 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam, for commission of
offences punishable U/S. 302/ 323/ 326/ 325/ 307/ 120-
B/ 34 of IPC r/w Section 25/27 of Arms Act, on the main
allegation of committing murder of deceased Jogesh
Behera and attempting to the life of Ajit Kumar Panigrahi
Page 1 of 4
by inflicting cut wounds to them with sharp cutting
weapons, along with co-accused person.
4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Debashis Panda,
learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the
deposition of PW.6 submits that although PW.6 has stated
the name of the petitioners to have participated in this
crime, but he has been well contradicted by the defence
to establish that he was not an eye witness to the
occurrence. Further, Mr. Panda submits that the
statement of PW.6 U/S. 164 of CrPC was in fact recorded
after two months of the occurrence, but he has neither
implicated the petitioners nor stated anything against him
in his statement recorded by the IO immediately after the
occurrence and, therefore, the statement of PW.6
recorded under Section 164 of CrPC loses its significance
in the aforesaid development. Mr. Panda also submits
that the injured eye witness has not stated anything
against the petitioners and the petitioners having
detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly be
granted bail. Further, Mr. Panda submits that the
petitioners are renewing their prayer for bail after
examination of PW.6 which liberty was granted to the
petitioners by this Court in BLAPL No.8476 of 2024. On
the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Panda prays to allow the
bail application of the petitioners.
4.1. On the other hand Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned
counsel for the informant, however, strongly refuting the
submission as advanced for the petitioners submits inter
alia that not only PW.6 has deposed against the
Page 2 of 4
petitioners, but there is prima facie materials against the
petitioners for committing murder of one and injuring
another and trial being going on, release of petitioners
would have adverse impact on the progress of fair trial in
this case. Accordingly, Mr. Ragada prays to reject the bail
application of the petitioners.
4.2. In echoing the submission, Mr. P. Satpathy,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that since there is
prima facie case against the petitioners, they should not
be released on bail.
5. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, there appears allegations
against the petitioners for committing murder of one
person and attempting to commit murder of another,
but right now the trial is going on. It is no doubt true,
the 164 CrPC statement of the PW.6 was recorded after
two months of the occurrence, but PW6 has deposed
against the petitioners in his evidence, however, detail
analysis of evidence and meticulous examination of
documentations on merit should be avoided at the time
of consideration of bail. Further, it appears to the Court
that the petitioner Jayasen Padhi was in fact granted
liberty by this Court in BLAPL No.8476 of 2024 to renew
his prayer for bail before the learned Court in seisin
over the matter, in the event, the said witness (PW.6)
does not appear on the next two dates, but in the
meantime, PW.6 has already been examined in this
case.
Page 3 of 4
6. In view of the above facts and taking into
consideration the nature and gravity of offences as
alleged against the petitioners vis-à-vis the accusations
sought to be brought against them and regard being
had to the severity of the allegation levelled against the
petitioners and the punishment that would entail in
conviction for the offences alleged against the
petitioners and keeping in view concept of fair trial
which also includes protection to the witness and
creating an atmosphere to give belief to the witnesses
to depose without fear and favour, this Court does not
consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioners,
especially when material injured witness like PW.2 has
become hostile to the prosecution case.
Hence, these two bail applications of the
petitioners namely Jayasen Padhi in BLAPL No.5686 of
2025 and Harihar Mohanty in BLAPL No.145 of 2025
stand rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed
of.
7. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per
Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Jayakrushna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-Jul-2025 18:43:24
Page 4 of 4