BIKI @ BIKASH KUMAR NAIK v. STATE OF ODISHA
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2025-12-19. BIKI @ BIKASH KUMAR NAIK v. STATE OF ODISHA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 13109 of 2025 Biki @ Bikash Kum Naik .. …... Petitioner(s) Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Swain, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha . ….... Opposite Party Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 19. 12. 2025 Order No. 01 F. I. R. Dated Police Case No. and Sections No. Station Courts’ Name 296 07. 04. 2025 Talcher G. R. Case Sections 310(2) No. 593 of of BNS 2025 pending in the court of learned S. D. J. M. , Talcher 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Talcher P. S. Case No. 296 of 2025 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 593 of 2025 pending Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P. A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Dec-2025 19:35:27 in the court of learned S. D. J. M.
, Talcher, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Section 310(2) of BNS, 2023, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 07. 04. 2025 at 7. 00 P. M. one Shreetam Sahoo lodged a written report alleging therein that on 07. 04,2025 at about 11. 00 A. M, while the complainant along with one Ugresen Pradhan were going to deposit a cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- of their petrol pump station at PNB, Deulabeda on their way at Canal road at a distance of about 500 meter from village Balhar five unknown culprits came in a car from his back side and obstructed them and assaulted them by means of fist blows, bhujali and knife. They forcibly took away cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- from them and fled away from the spot. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no prima facie evidence against him.
He further submits that in the meantime investigation has been completed and the co-accused persons have been released on bail. The Petitioner is in custody since 15. 11. 2025. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that the investigation prima-facilely shows the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P. A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Dec-2025 19:35:27 well involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged crime and the Petitioner is a habitual offender. 7.
Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner, the stringent punishment provided and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case, the prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected. 8. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P. A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Dec-2025 19:35:27
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.