The court emphasizes the gravity of murder and assault charges in denying bail, highlighting the need for careful consideration of witness credibility and evidence at preliminary stages.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Since these two 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.

3. These are the 2^nd bail applications U/S.483 of the BNSS, 2023 by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Berhampur Sadar P.S. Case No.510 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.175 of 2024 pending in the file of learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam, facing trial for commission of offences punishable under sections 452/294/323/324/ 325/326/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code turned to offences punishable U/Ss.449/341/294/324/326/307/ 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Dunia Sahu and assaulting as well as injuring P.W.3 and P.W.6.

4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Soumyajit Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits by referring to the cross examination of P.Ws.3 and 6 that the witnesses are not at all believable, even though they have stated about the incident in their examination in chief, but they have turned hostile to the prosecution case in the cross examination. Mr. Mishra, further submits that there are all together six eye witnesses to the occurrence, but three eye witnesses have been declined by the prosecution, however, the rest two out of three eye witnesses being examined have not supported the prosecution allegation against the petitioners, but one eye witness, namely, Udhab Jena is still remaining to be examined and in such situation, when all material witnesses have already been examined and no evidence having been surfaced against any of the accused persons-petitioners, their further detention in custody is unwarranted and therefore, the petitioners having been detained in judicial custody for more than two and half years without trial being concluded may kindly be dealt leniently to grant bail to them.

4.1. Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 892 of 2026 by referring to the cross-examination of P.W.3 & 6 submits that the petitioner was not at all being identified by the eye witnesses and, therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 6 having not of that quality, cannot be used to incarcerate the accused-petitioners in this case and accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be considered favourably by taking into account release of the co-accused persons on bail.

4.2. On the contrary, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Satpathy, learned Addl. PP by highlighting the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 6 submits that not only the witnesses have deposed against the petitioners, but other material eye witnesses are yet to be examined and the crime having committed in exhibition of brutality, the bail application of the petitioners may kindly be rejected.

5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears the allegation against the petitioners for committing murder of the deceased Dunia Sahu and assaulting as well as injuring P.Ws.3 and 6, however, co-accused Sagar Panda and Bhiku Jena have admittedly been granted bail by this Court, but they do not stand on similar footing with that of the present petitioners inasmuch as it is not alleged against them for attacking the deceased and the injured and the allegation against them remains only for their presence at the spot, but there is allegation against the petitioners for assaulting the deceased and the injured. It is no doubt advanced for the petitioners that the material witnesses like P.Ws. 3 and 6 had testified a separate story in their cross e