Babulu Pingua v. Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak

ORDER 06.05.2026

1. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Bamebari P.S. Case No.122 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.27 of 2024 registered for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 342/ 323/ 385/ 302/ 120-B of the IPC, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua. The petitioner had approached learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in S.T. No.27 of 2024 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 19.03.2026 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for enlargement on bail.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.

3. The prosecution case is that on 20.07.2023 at about

12.30 P.M., the informant lodged a written report at the P.S. alleging that on 18.07.2023 at about 10 A.M., while her husband Tele @ Makuru Hessa was near Silijoda mines, one Balaram Kanungo and Mantu nayak of village Gurudua called her husband and took him to Guruda (Benuapani). Thereafter, they assaulted her husband detaining him inside a newly constructed house of Balaram Kanungo in village Guruda on the allegation that her husband had committed theft of tyre and battery from their vehicle and for giving information to police regarding their smuggled of minerals. She further alleged that said persons continued assaulting her husband to disclose the name of other persons of her village, who had informed the fact to the police and her husband disclosed the names of Babulu Pingua and Raj Bahadur and thereafter Balaram Kanungo called Babulu Pingua and Raju Bahadur of village Guruda and then Balaram Kanungo and Mantu Nayak assaulted them. Hence, the case.

4. The trial is substantially proceeded in the present case. 12 witnesses have been examined in this case. P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, they were declared hostile. Only P.W.12 has supported the prosecution case as yet.

5. Perusal of the evidence of P.W.12 reveals that she has made omnibus allegation against all most all the accused persons, but attributed specific overt act against Balaram Kanungo, Sumitra and Kala.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Sumitra Pingua has already been enlarged on bail, even Balaram Kanungo, who appears to be the principal accused in the present case, has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 24.02.2026 in BLAPL No.13311 of 2025.

7. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to paragraph-4 of the order dated 24.02.2026 submits that the only eye witness, who is the informant in the present case i.e. Mamata Hesa has not yet been examined. The prosecution could not produce the said witness since long. Therefore, taking note of this aspect of the matter, the Coordinate Bench has admitted the principal accused Balaram Kanungo to bail. Paragraph-4 of the said order reads as follows: “4. This Court has the privilege to go through the order- sheets of the learned trial Court which reveals that despite sincere efforts of the trial Court, the attendance of the informant could not be procured to depose the evidence in the trial, but the petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2024 and in the meantime, around 21 witnesses have already been examined, however, the main allegation of giving fatal assault to the deceased is directed against co- accused persons, but not against the present petitioner, of course there is allegation against the petitioner for assaulting the deceased prior to his assault by other co- accused persons. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account the custody period of the petitioner and the main allegation of giving fatal assault leading to the death of the deceased being directed against co- accused persons, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits the petitioner to bail.”

8. When the matter was taken up on 22.04.2026, a specific query was put to the State Counsel as to whether the informant has already been examined or not. The learned State counsel, on instruction, submits that the said witness has not been examined.

9. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the proceeding dated 11.11.2025 before the trial court also records that despite several efforts, the informant in the present case could not be produced by the prosecution for examination. The petitioner has been in custody since July, 2020.

10. Regard being had to the period of custody of the petitioner since July, 2020 and the nature of evidence brought on record by the prosecution through the witnesses till date, since the prosecution has failed to produce the informant for examination and also since the co-accused has been granted bail on the same ground, the petitioner is entitled to parity. Hence, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

11. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions: (i) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till the disposal of the trial; (ii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each date on which the case is posted for trial without fail; (iii) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever; (iv) He shall not commit any offence while on bail, and (v) He shall be released on bail subject to verification of similar type of antecedents. In the event the petitioner is found wanting for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit.

12. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Subhasis Judge (S.S. Mishra)