[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kusha Bag vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 30 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2830 of 2026
Kusha Bag .... Petitioner
Mr. Himanshu Sekhar
Panigrahi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 30.04.2026
02.
1.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with
Burla P.S. Case No.398 of 2024 corresponding to S.T.
Case No.56 of 2025 arising out of G.R. Case No.636 of
2024 registered for the alleged commission of the
offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS,
2023, pending in the Court of the learned Sessions
Judge, Sambalpur. The petitioner had approached the
learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in S.T. Case
No.56 of 2025 praying for grant of bail. The learned
Court below vide its order dated 15.01.2026 rejected
the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner has filed the present petition under
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for enlargement on
bail.
2. 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.
3. The prosecution case is that on 26.08.2024 at
about 5.15 p.m., the informant reported at the P.S.
that on 25.08.2024 evening, the petitioner called his
brother Rakesh Nag @ Chhotu and took him to do the
work. But his brother did not return home. At about
11 p.m., he along with his mother went to the house of
the petitioner and when they asked about his brother,
the petitioner stated that he has left his brother at
Goshala chowk. Then they returned back to their
house. On 26.08.2024 at about 4 p.m., they received
information that the petitioner has told some persons
that he has committed murder of his brother Rakesh
Nag and threw his body by the side of a pond near
Sani temple. Thereafter, he reached at the spot and
saw that his brother was lying dead with bleeding
injuries on his person. Hence, the case.
4. Mr. H.S. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently argued the matter for grant of
bail, by taking this Court to the evidence of the
witnesses. He submits that P.W.9 is examined by the
prosecution to establish the recovery of weapon of
offence on disclosure the petitioner to establish the
element of Section 27 of evidence Act. However, his
testimony is contrary to the evidence of P.W.5, who
stated that the weapon of offence is recovered by the
police from the crime scene i.e. from the spot.
5. On the contrary, learned State counsel argued
that one Krushna Jagadeb is the witness to the
preparation of the crime by the petitioner and Sudam
Bag is the witness to the extra judicial confession.
These two witnesses have not yet been examined in the
present case.
6. Regard being had to the aforementioned, although
I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on regular
bail at this stage, however, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to renew his bail plea after five months or
after examination of Krushna Jagadeb and Sudam Bag
whichever is earlier.
7. With the aforementioned observation, the BLAPL is
disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Subhasis
Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 30-Apr-2026 19:24:36
