IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.9612 of 2025 Sankar @ Sankarsan Debata …. Petitioner(s)

Mr. Debi Prasad Dash, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s)

Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No. 18.12.2025

02. 1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. Case No.244 of 2023 arising out of Bentkar (42 Mouza) P.S. Case No.90 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.304 of 2023 registered on the allegation of the commission of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. pending in the Court of the learned 1^st Additional District-

cum-Sessions Judge, Cuttack.

3. The petitioner had approached the learned court below praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 25.08.2025 has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 B.N.S.S, 2023 praying for enlargement on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.03.2023 at about 10.21 P.M., the informant lodged a written report alleging therein that on the same day at about 9.30 A.M., the petitioner had contacted the informant’s husband (the deceased) over telephone and thereafter took him on his motorcycle. Later in the evening, the informant was intimated by 42 Mouza Police that her husband had been found lying unconscious at village Boulakuda and was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Upon reaching the hospital, the informant came to know that her husband had already been declared dead by the attending doctors. It was further alleged that prior to the occurrence, the petitioner had threatened the deceased over phone with dire consequences. On the basis of the said written information, the present case was registered under Section 302 of I.P.C.

6. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court for grant of bail twice by filing BLAPL No.10926 of 2023 and BLAPL No.915 of 2025. Meanwhile, six witnesses have already been examined. Out of whom, P.Ws.1 and 2, who were supposed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence, have turned hostile.

7. Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State read out the confessional statement of the petitioner. As per the said statement, it appears that both the accused and the deceased had consumed liquor together, thereafter went to the house of the deceased for dinner, and while returning, they were consuming cold drinks. At that point of time, the accused-petitioner appears to have said some offensive things against the wife of the deceased. Immediately, the petitioner got provoked, pushed the deceased and assaulted him, as a result of which, the deceased sustained certain injuries.

8. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem has been examined as P.W.6. He in his testimony has found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:-

“i) A linear abrasion of length 1 cm was present on right malar eminence.

ii) two numbers of linear abrasions of 0.5 c.m. each were present on left ala and bridge of nose.

iii) A linear abrasion of length 0.25 c.m. was present on right side forehead iv) A linear scratch abrasion of length 3 cm. was present just below medial canthus of left eye v) A linear scratch abrasion of length 1 c.m. was present close to laterial aspect of left eyebrow.

vi) A linear abrasion of length 0.5 c.m. was present on left side neck, 7 cm. below angle of mandible.

All these abrasions look radish in brown in colour.”

In the cross-examination, the said doctor (P.W.6) in paragraph-3 has stated as under:-

“3. All the injuries be possible tussle between two people. The heart condition mentioned in the report be possible by naturally. Without viscera result I cannot say that the death of the deceased was a