Page 1 of 3.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.8563 of 2026

CNR No. ODHC010628522026

Bulu @ Surendra Pradhan ..... Petitioner

Represented by Adv. –

Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo

-versus-

State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties

Represented by Adv. –

Mr. Pradipta Satpathy,

ASC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

24.09.2026

Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual

/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional

Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the

bail application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The present bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S.,

2023 has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection

with G.R. Case No.139 of 2011, arising out of Balugaon P.S. Case

No.57 of 2011, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Chilika, for

alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 394 of

I.P.C.

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

Petitioner has been taken into judicial custody since 25.07.2026 on

Page 2 of 3.

the strength of an N.B.W. of arrest issued by the learned trial court in

course of trial. He further submitted that initially the Petitioner was

released on bail on 02.06.2014. Thereafter, the Petitioner was

appearing before the trial court. However, due to a communication

gap with his conducting counsel, the Petitioner could not appear

before the trial court on 15.06.2024. As a result of which, the

learned trial court has issue an N.B.W. against the present Petitioner.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that

such non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional and the

same was caused due to communication gap with the conducting

counsel. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner

submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any stringent

terms and conditions.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected to

release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that the Petitioner is a

defaulter. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to him. He further

submitted that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, there is

every likelihood that he might default again which would eventually

cause delay in conclusion of trial. On such ground, learned counsel

for the State prayed for rejection of Petitioner’s prayer for bail.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels

appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of

the facts and circumstances of the present case, further taking note of

the fact that earlier the Petitioner was earlier released on court bail

and due to his default to appear before the trial court, he was again

taken into custody, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on

bail subject to stringent condition.

7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in

Page 3 of 3.

the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter. The

release of the Petitioners shall also be subject to such other terms and

conditions as would be fixed by the court in seisin over the matter.

Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation

of bail.

8. It is open to the learned trial court to proceed against the

Petitioner and to ensure his attendance before the trial court in the

event he makes any further default in appearance before the learned

trial court.

9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra)

Judge

Debasis