IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2813 of 2025 Ramesh Das @ Ramesh … Petitioner Kumar Das Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate -versus-

State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. M.R. Patra, Addl. PP CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER(ORAL)

Order No. 11.12.2025

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 petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Baidyanathpur PS Case No.282 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No.1027 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.302 of IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Bapi Gouda.

3. In the course of hearing Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are eye witnesses to the occurrence, but they have not supported the prosecution allegation in their evidence and, therefore, the petitioner having detained in custody for a substantial period may kindly be granted bail. It is also canvassed by Mr. Sahoo that FIR has been lodged against the petitioner after nine months of the occurrence and, therefore, the story has put forth by the informant is not acceptable and whatever the allegation has been made against the petitioner is concocted allegation and thereby, the petitioner should not be detained in custody on concocted allegation. On the aforesaid submission, Mr.Sahoo prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

3.1 In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while not disputing about some of the eye witnesses not supporting the prosecution allegation, but he however, by placing the statement of one Sibaram Padhi, prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for committing murder of the deceased, but it is not disputed that the FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner after nine months of the occurrence, however, eye witnesses like P. Ajit Patra and Pratap Chandra Mohanty having been examined as PW.1 and PW.8 have not supported the prosecution case and another eye witness M. Jagdish has been declined by the prosecution to examine in this case but, it is not in dispute that one witness namely Sibaram Padhi is also an eye witness to the occurrence, however, he is yet to be examined in this case. In the aforesaid situation, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner without examination of the eye witness Sibaram Padhi.

5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge Jayakrushna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Dec-2025 13:05:40