[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Budhia @ Kamalakanta Das vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 29 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 3360 of 2026
Budhia @ Kamalakanta Das ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Samarendra Bahadur, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
29.04.2026
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. Sections
Station and
No.
Courts'
Name
901 03.11.2025 Soro C.T. Case Sections
No.1740 111(6)/111(4)/112/305(a)/
of 2025 305(e)/331(4)/332(b)/61(l)
pending of the BNS,
in the 2023 read with Sections
court of 25/27 of the Arms Act
learned
J.M.F.C.,
Soro
Reason: Authentication 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Soro P.S. Case No. 901 of
2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No.1740 of 2025 pending in
the court of learned J.M.F.C., Soro , registered for the alleged
commission of offences under Sections
111(6)/111(4)/112/305(a)/305(e)/331(4)/332(b)/61(l) of the
BNS,2023 read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, has filed
this petition for his release on bail.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the informant, the Deputy
Administrator who was in-charge of Store House, Soro
lodged the FIR before Soro PS alleging that on 03.11.2025 at 6
A.M., he got a telephonic information from the Night
Watchman and when he switched on the light of the new
court building, discovered that the padlocks of the grill gate
of the building has been broken and there was theft in
Sessions Store house located on the ground floor of the said
building. After receipt of the information, he proceeded to the
spot immediately and found that the latch of the Sessions
Storehouse had been broken and the items were lying
scattered therein. Some valuables like seized gold, silver,
cash, etc., kept in an Aluminum box were missing. Other
stolen from the storehouse. Then he informed the Judge-in-
Charge, Storehouse, who instructed him to report the matter
at the PS. Hence, this case.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner
is no way connected with the offences as alleged by the
prosecution in any manner. He further contends that at the
time of the occurrence, the present Petitioner was in jail
custody in another case. He further submits that the
Petitioner has been implicated in this case based on the
confessional statement of the co-accused persons. The
Petitioner has been in custody since 12.02.2026. Hence, he
submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations.
7. Without going into the merit of the case and based on the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the
Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with some
stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by
the learned court in seisin over the matter with further
conditions that:-
i. The Petitioner shall appear before the local Police
Station on every alternate Sunday between 10.00
A.M. to 12.00 P.M. till conclusion of the trial.;
Date: 30-Apr-2026 13:27:29
ii. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned court
in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of
the case;
iii. The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any
criminal offence while on bail.
iv. The Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
8. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
