CUTTACK, India, May 16 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on April 15:
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.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv%2B3xxEOnhmxVsqdOANbtTzYgvYRvZXLW0Yb4pzCnZblZ&caseno=BLAPL/1067/2026&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010057542026&state_code=11&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
