IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.7491 of 2025 Y. Sudeep & Another … Petitioners Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate (informant)

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER(ORAL)

12.11.2025 Order No

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

2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Lalbag P.S. Case No.164 of 2022 corresponding to S.T. Case No.32 of 2023 pending in the file of learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 302/450/394/201/120- B/34 IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased B. Gunamati by attacking her with a kitchen knife.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is absolutely no evidence available against the petitioners except the extra judicial confession before PW.4, but the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and unless such evidence is corroborated by material particulars, no reliance can be placed and the petitioners having detained in custody since 26.07.2022 and no evidence being forthcoming against the petitioners even after examination of 15 witnesses, the petitioners may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. In opposing such prayer for bail, Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned counsel for the informant by taking this Court through the relevant part of the charge sheet submits that not only the blood stain clothes/ wearing apparels were recovered from the possession of petitioner No.2-Y. Sunil, but also there is enough materials to indicate that the petitioners have been engaged as contract killer to execute the crime and there being sufficient evidence to implicate the present petitioners, the bail application of the petitioners may kindly be rejected.

3.2. Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. PP, however, by taking this Court through the other evidence on record submits that the petitioners being prima facie involved in this case, their bail application may kindly be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for committing murder of the deceased, but most of the witnesses examined in this case have not substantially deposed against any of the petitioners except PW.4. Further, the material witness to recovery being examined as PW.10 has not supported the prosecution case and on the other hand, another witness to disclosure statement of the petitioner No.2 namely L. Ganesh Naidu has been declined by the prosecution to examine him.

5. In such view of the matter and trial having not yet been concluded even after more than three years of custody of the petitioners and taking into account the other materials placed on record in entirety together with the evidence of the witnesses so far examined, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits each of the petitioners to bail.

6. Hence, the bail application of the petitioners stands allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deems fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

(i) the petitioners shall not contact the informant or visit his house or street till disposal of the case, (ii) the petitioners shall not threaten, coerce, induce or influence any of the witnesses including the informant and his family members acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the learned trial Court.

7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stand disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as pe