The court ruled that the presumption of innocence and insufficient evidence against the accused warranted bail, despite the severity of the charges, underscoring the need for bail conditions to prevent misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since these four bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with ST Case No.64 of 2023,ST Case No.122 of 2023, ST Case No.122 of 2023 & ST Case No.181 of 2023 corresponding to GR Case No.103-F of 2011, GR Case No.103-H of 2011, GR Case No.103-H of 2011 & GR Case No.103-I of 2011 respectively which arise out of Titilagarh PS Case No.37 of 2011 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.147/ 148/ 341/ 325/ 302/ 436/ 114/ 120-B/ 149 of IPC r/w Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, on the main allegation of rioting, along with co-accused persons being armed with deadly weapons by forming an unlawful assembly and attacking the deceased and setting fire to the Bolero vehicle in which the deceased was sitting by pouring petrol and thereby, causing death of the deceased Radhe Shyam Rai, the then DGM of Powmex Steel Plant, Titilagarh.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Basanta Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for all the petitioners submits that out of 52 accused persons, 35 co-accused have faced the trial, but only one was found convicted and that too, the said convict was admitted to bail by this Court, which was confirmed in Apex Court. It is further submitted that another co-accused Basanta Kumar Sahoo, who has been granted bail by this Court, but the order granting bail of such co- accused has been unsuccessfully challenged by the informant before the Apex Court. It is further submitted by Mr. Das that the accused persons have faced the trial and remained in custody for more than two years and in the meantime, the vital witness namely Alok Kumar Nayak having already been examined in the trial has not substantially supported the prosecution allegation against the petitioners and he was accordingly found to have not been able to identify any of the accused persons including co-accused Madan Jal and Mahatab Kharsel, who are stated to be prime accused in this case and, therefore, the petitioners being the innocent persons and having detained in custody for a substantial period, may kindly be granted bail.

3.1. In opposing such prayer for bail, Mr. Avijit Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for Graphite India Limited for whose behalf FIR was lodged in this case, submits that not only the present accused persons have been apprehended after substantial lapse of time of more than 10 years, but also their implication is on the basis of admissible evidence, which is palpable from the evidence of eye witness Alok Kumar Nayak, who in the course of his examination before the trial Court has uttered the name of the accused Mahatab Kharsel to have set fire to the Bolero vehicle resulting in death of the deceased and the role played by the accused Madan Jal in pelting stone to the face of the deceased and, thereby, all the accused persons-cum-petitioners having participated in the unlawful assembly to commit murder of the deceased, they are squarely liable and therefore, they should not be granted bail. Mr. Patnaik further highlighting the issue and taking this Court through the evidence of informant submits that the informant has uttered the name of all the accused persons who are present at the spot and the bail granted to co-accused Basanta Kumar Sahoo having no precedency value as held by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.55714 of 2024. Mr. Patnaik further, submits that the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.810-811 of 2021 having taken into account the long abs