The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.11914 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS). Rohit Pradhan … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Ray, Advocate along with Mr. K.C. Dash, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.12.2025 (ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is the bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Burla P.S. Case No.417 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.91/14 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, being charge sheeted for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.302/201/427/435/34 of the IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Khirod Tandia by conjointly assaulting him with BLAPL No.11914 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 lethal weapons, along with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard, Mr. Prasanta Kishore Ray, learned counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Krushna Chandra Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. In praying to grant bail, Mr. Ray raises the following points:- (i) The star witness PW.8 being unworthy of credit for his involvement in other criminal cases cannot be believed and he the occurrence as having not seen admitted his evidence cannot be relied upon, cross-examination, in (ii) Bail should not be withheld as pre-trial punishment, (iii) There is complete lack of evidence, (iv) Co-accused Tuna @ Lalit Badhai having been granted bail, the petitioner is entitled to parity. (v) Bail is the rule, but jail is the exception and keeping the petitioner in confinement would tantamount to violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for assaulting the deceased conjointly along with co-accused persons by means of lethal weapons, such as knife, bamboo BLAPL No.11914 of 2025 Page 2 of 9 lathies, plastic pipes and brickbats and the post mortem report of the deceased reveal 40 (forty) injuries including four stab wounds on his person. It is, however, undisputed that co-accused Tuna @ Lalit Badhai was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in BLAPL No. 9779 of 2024 while refusing bail to seven co-accused persons. The co- ordinate Bench while granting bail to aforesaid co- accused has quoted the evidence of PW.8, an eye witness by observing inter alia the following:- “xx xx xx The said eye witnesses have very specifically named the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8, whereas no allegation has been made as against the petitioner No.6- Tuna @ Lalit Badhai. The said in custody since accused has been 12.01.2024. 5. Regard being had to the evidence of the eyewitness, P.W.8, who has stated nothing against the accused No.6- Tuna @ Lalit Badhai, I am inclined to enlarge accused- Petitioner No.6- Tuna @ Lalit Badhai on bail, while rejecting the bail application of the other co-accused persons.” 4. Further, it appears that PW.8 has not uttered the name of the co-accused Tuna @ Lalit Badhai in his evidence, but the same is not for the petitioner. Hence, the plea of parity is not applicable BLAPL No.11914 of 2025 Page 3 of 9 to the petitioner for the reason more than one. In the context of parity, this Court considers it useful to refer to the decision in Sagar vs. State of U.P. & Another; (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2584, wherein the Apex Court after referring to earlier precedents has observed in Paragraphs-10 & 11 as under:- “10. The question that arises for consideration is whether, as done by the High Court in the impugned order, parity with the co-accused persons can be the sole reason for granting bail. Bail has often been stated to be the rule, and jail, the exception. This cannot be emphasized enough. At the same time, this, however, does not mean that the relief of bail is to be granted without due the circumstances involved in the alleged offence for which the accused person has been arrested. In this regard, it has to be noted that a Court, while granting bail, has to consider a number of aspects. Judgments too many to count, delivered by this Court have delineated the relevant considerations to be kept in mind. A recent reiteration thereof was in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690. The relevant extracts thereof are as under :- regard to “19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows: (i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail; (ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail; BLAPL No.11914 of 2025 Page 4 of 9 (iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court.