JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The petitioner Sushil Kumar Nayak who was the officer in charge of Bheden police station has re-knocked the doors of this Court for bail in connection with Ulunda P.S. Case No.84 of 2015 in which charge sheet has been submitted under sections 342, 302, 201, 218, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which corresponds to Sessions Case No.44 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonepur.

2. The earlier bail application of the petitioner in BLAPL No.6858 of 2015 was rejected by this Court on 29.06.2016 with the following observations:-

“5. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties, looking at the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record against the petitioner relating to the commission of the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted, the nature and gravity of the accusation against the petitioner, the manner in which the petitioner being the Officer in Charge of Bheden Police Station abused his power, called one innocent person like the deceased to the police station, wrongfully confined and tortured him in order to ascertain the whereabouts of his son, assaulted him to death and then disposed of the dead body inside the jungle and attempted to cover such death and particularly when such type of crimes are rampant in the society which portrays the misuse of powers by the police officers on the poor and backward section of the society and toying with their lives and particularly when chance of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out, it would not be proper to release the petitioner on bail in the larger interests of public and State.”

3. The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7659 of 2016 against the order of this Court dated 29.06.2016 passed in BLAPL No.6858 of 2015. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave petition vide order dated 17.06.2016 holding therein that there was no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

4. The case was instituted on the basis of the first information report submitted by one Biju Bag, son of Makhnu Bag (hereafter ‘the deceased’) on 24.09.2015 before the Inspector in Charge, Ulunda Police Station vide Ulunda P.S. Case No.84 of 2015 registered under sections 302/201 of the Indian penal Code and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 23.02.2016 under sections 342/302/201/218/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others.

5. After the commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the petitioner filed an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case No.44 of 2016 which was rejected on 28.11.2016 holding that there are sufficient materials to warrant strong suspicion about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of heinous offences like 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, other offences and that the offence of murder appeared to have been committed inside the police hazat of Bheden Police Station.

6. Mr. Nrusingh Charan Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody since 02.11.2015 and in the meantime after rejection of the earlier bail application, the case has been committed to the Court of Session for trial and some of the co-accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court and an inquiry as contemplated under section 176(1-A) of Cr.P.C. has been conducted by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh and he has submitted his report dated 26.05.2016 which was forwarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh to the Superintendent of Police, Bargarh on 20.12.2016 wherein the findings have been recorded that the police officials of Bheden Police Station including the petitioner are no way connected with the death of deceased Makhnu Bag. He further submitted that in view of the change in the circ