Ashutosh Kumar Goutam @ vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 3407 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ashutosh Kumar Goutam @ vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 15 April, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
              BLAPL No.1067 of 2026

   (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
   BNSS).

   Ashutosh Kumar Goutam @      ...                  Petitioner
   Bablu Kilo @ Ashutosh Goutam
                       -versus-
   State of Odisha                      ... Opposite Party

   For Petitioner             : Mr. C. Samantaray,
                                Advocate

   For Opposite Party         : Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.04.2026 (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

Puintala PS Case No.374 of 2024 corresponding to

GR Case No.2053 of 2024 pending in the file of

learned SDJM, Balangir, for commission of offences

punishable U/Ss.103(1)/ 61(2)/ 238/ 127(2)/ 140(1)/

351(3)/ 3(5) of BNS r/w Sections 25/27 of Arms

Act, on the main allegation of committing double

murder of Md. Javed and Palak Mishra by slitting

their throats with knife after abducting and

confining them pursuant to a conspiracy with other

co-accused persons in furtherance of their common

intention and possessing fire arms.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Chandan

Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner by

referring to the facts stated in the charge-sheet and

the bail order passed by this Court refusing to grant

bail to co-accused persons in BLAPL Nos.1358 & 2673

of 2025 submits that the petitioner had never visited

to Odisha nor had he any connection in the

commission of crime, rather he has been falsely

framed in this case and the so called CDR analysis

reveals about the communication between the phone

numbers of the present petitioner with co-accused

persons, but that is prior to three months of the

occurrence and that would not lend credence to the

allegation against the petitioner, however, the

petitioner being in custody for substantial period with

examination of material witness in the meantime, his

bail application may considered favorably to grant him

bail.

2.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned

Addl. PP while opposing the bail application of the

petitioner inter alia submits that not only the

disclosure statement of the accused persons have

been recorded in accordance with the relevant

provisions of law, but also the involvement of the

petitioner is prima facie found out and, therefore, the

petitioner being involved in a gruesome double murder

of one male and one female, his bail application may

kindly be rejected.

3. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, there appears

allegation against the petitioner for committing double

murder of two persons by entering into conspiracy

with co-accused persons. The materials placed on

record allegedly reveals about implication of the

petitioner in this case on the basis of materials

collected by extensive use of technology in the form of

electronic evidence with necessary certification as

required under law and such electronic evidence are

allegedly collected through surveillance of CCTV, CDR,

SDR, IPDR, CAF of mobiles analysis and mobile

locations of the petitioner and co-accused persons,

which are of course subject to proof. The role of the

present petitioner has been allegedly emphasized in

the copy of the charge-sheet and it is stated therein

that one of the deceased had allegedly brought Lakhs

of Rupees from the petitioner and the petitioner was

regularly in touch with other co-accused persons

through mobile phone and the present petitioner had

allegedly come to Bolangir at the relevant time of

occurrence. It is also stated in the charge-sheet that

one of the deceased was working as the henchman of

the petitioner for extortion related activities and there

was allegedly monetary transaction between the

petitioner and one of the deceased.

4. Law is well settled that detail analysis of

evidence and meticulous examination of documents on

merit should be avoided at the stage of consideration

of bail application and right now the trial is going on

with examination of some of the witnesses. In view

of the above facts and after having considered

the rival submissions and taking into consideration

the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged

against the petitioner vis-a-vis the allegation

sought to be brought against him and the

materials collected in support thereof and keeping

in view the severity of allegations and the

circumstance under which two persons had been killed

and thrown in an isolated place near a village and its

impact on the society and further the punishment

provided for the offences alleged against the

petitioner and regard being had to the role as

alleged against the petitioner and there being

reasonable chance of tampering of evidence of the

witnesses by the petitioner, if released on bail, this

Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner.

5. Hence, the bail application of the

Petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL

stands disposed of. The soft copy of this order be

immediately communicated to the learned trial

Court.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Orissa,the 15th day of April, 2026/Jayakrushna Cuttack Date: 16-Apr-2026 16:21:22