IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2629 of 2025 (cid:1)ó(cid:1)ï Sarua @ Mahendra Jena Petitioner(s)

Mr. Rabindra Nath Panda Advocate -versus-

(cid:1)ó(cid:1)ï State of Odisha Opposite Party Mr.Tapas Kumar Acharya, ASC CORAM:

D R.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order ORDER No. 30.04.2024

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

3. This is the second journey of this Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Banki PS Case No.370 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 515 of 2024, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Banki, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 309(6) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections-25/27 of the Arms Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

3. The fact of the prosecution case is that on 27.10.2024, the informant, Saroj Khatua lodged a written report before the Banki P.S. alleging therein that at about 4.00 p.m. finding the Informant sitting alone, the Petitioner along with 4/5 others on the point of a gun abducted him to a lonely place and demanded cash of Rs.l.00 lakh. When the informant fails to comply their demand, the above culprits snatched away his G-7 mobile phone amounting to Rs.50,000/- and one gold chain from his neck and thereby told him to return the same in the event he pays the said amount of Rs.l.00 lakh. Pursuant to the said FIR, investigation was taken up. The up-to-date case diary and materials available on record reveal that during the course of investigation, the I.O. examined the complainant and some other witnesses, recorded their statements, arrested the present Petitioner Saru @ Mahendra Kumar Jena on 04.11.2024 and forwarded him to the court for alleged commission of offences under Section-309(6) BNS, 2023 read with Sections-25/27 Arms Act. Hence, this case.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an innocent person, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the Petitioner is a local inhabitant, and the investigation of the case is going on. Hence, there is no chance of absconding and tampering the evidence. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since on 04.11.2024. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner is involved in three similar cases which are pending against him. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations, seriousness of the offence, criminal antecedents in his credit, he may not be released on bail.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner, the stringent punishment provided and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case, the prayer for bail to the Petitioner is devoid of merit. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail afresh after filing of the charge-sheet.

7. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

Judge Signature Not Verified Narayan Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-May-2025 18:51:12