The court emphasized that in serious offenses, bail is to be granted cautiously, considering the gravity of charges, witness credibility, and the ongoing trial.

JUDGMENT :

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 1^st 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 lethal weapons, along with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.

2. 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 having not seen the occurrence as admitted in cross-examination, his evidence cannot be relied upon,

(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 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 accused has been in custody since 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 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 regard to the circumstances involved in the alleged offence for which the accused person