Orissa High Court
Bikram Sahu vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 29 October, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.4837 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Sec. 439 of
CrPC).
Bikram Sahu ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. D. Sarangi, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl.PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.10.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by
the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
Purusottampur P.S. Case No.446 of 2021
corresponding to S.T. Case No. 26 of 2022 (G.R. Case
No.440 of 2021) pending in the file of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam, for commission
of offences punishable U/S.147/148/294/506/302/
149 of IPC, on the main allegation of smashing a
stone on the head of the deceased to commit murder,
along with co-accused persons.
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Debasis
Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that although FIR has been lodged against seven
persons, but charge sheet was submitted against the
present petitioner and accordingly, the present
petitioner was facing the trial, but after sometime, six
other co-accused persons have been arrayed as the
accused persons by the learned trial Court in exercise
of power U/S.319 of CrPC, however, such order was
challenged before this Court and the same is pending
and in the meantime, the six co-accused, who have
been arrayed as accused persons, have also obtained
interim protection order from this Court, but
whatever may be the allegation appearing against the
petitioner, it is only the allegation and it cannot be
possible that seven persons can inflict one injury by
assaulting the deceased with rock stones and the
petitioner having detained in custody for last four
years, may kindly be granted bail, since this Court in
exercise of power U/S. 483 CrPC has directed the
learned trial Court to conclude the trial in BLAPL No.
6948 of 2024 within three months as on the date of
passing of such order i.e. on 07.11.2024.
2.1. On the other hand, Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned
Addl. PP, however, by strongly opposing the bail
application of the petitioner submits that not only the
petitioner is the principal accused, but also he is
stated to have smashed the rock stone on the head of
the deceased resulting in his death and that fact has
been reiterated by the informant in his evidence and
adding or deleting the co-accused persons from the
array of accused persons has nothing to do with the
trial of the present case, since the subsequently
arrayed accused has to face the trial separately. Mr.
Acharya further submits that the petitioner is not only
involved in this case, but also involved in another
four cases, out of which two is for commission of
offence U/S.394 of IPC and rest are for other
offences. Accordingly, Mr. Acharya prays to reject the
bail application of the petitioner.
3. This Court has of course the privilege to go
through the evidence of PWs.1 to 12 as produced by
learned counsel for the petitioner, but the allegation
against the petitioner is serious and for committing
murder of the deceased. No doubt it is advanced that
this Court in BLAPL No. 6948 of 2024 has directed the
learned trial Court to conclude the trial within three
months, but in P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of
Karnataka; (2002) 4 SCC 578, a Constitutional
Bench of seven Judges of the Apex Court has made it
clear that it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor
judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer
limit for conclusion of all proceeding. Further, on
perusal of the record, it would go to say that the
informant has brought allegation against the
petitioner and he is claimed to have been an eye
witness to the occurrence. Besides, right now the trial
has progressed a lot and the petitioner is also having
criminal antecedents, which have not been disclosed
in the bail application of the petitioner.
4. In such view of the matter and after having
considered the rival submissions and on going
through the materials placed on record and taking
into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Kaushal Singh Vrs. State of Rajasthan; (2025)
INSC 871, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner.
Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner
stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands
disposed of.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 29th day of October, 2025/S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 30-Oct-2025 10:58:11
