IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.10892 of 2024 Babuli Charan Padhihari …. Petitioner Mr. P. K. Rath, Sr. Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. M. K. Mohanty, ASC Mr. B. P. Pradhan, Advocate (for the informant) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 17.02.2026 01. 1. Heard Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. 2. Instant petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner in connection with Badagad P.S. Case No.194 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.338 of 2024 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Bhubaneswar on the grounds stated therein. 3. Perused the F.I.R. as at Annexure-1. A copy of the Deed of Relinquishment executed in favour of the petitioner’s father by the original owner, namely, Manjulata Sahoo is at Annexure-2. A copy of the F.I.R. i.e. Annexure-3 is lodged at the behest of the petitioner. It is informed to the Court by Mr. Pradhan, the learned counsel for the informant that later to Annexure-3, it has resulted in submission of a final report. The Court finds that the subject matter involved is pending in a suit instituted from the side of the petitioner in C.S. No.718 of 2022. Referring to the F.I.R. i.e. Annexure-1, it is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the present accused is having no role to play in so far as the fraud if any committed in respect of the resolution of the proprietary concern and therefore, he should be granted pre- arrest bail. The further submission is that the allegation, on a reading of Annexure-1, is entirely against the land broker, namely, Susanta Patra. 4. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties in respect of the case land and lodging of the F.I.Rs. as at annexures-1 and 3 and the fact that the matter is sub-judice before the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.718 of 2022, the petitioner, in absence any such involvement with regard to the alleged fraud, as submitted by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate, he should be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, refers to the affidavit filed and submits that an enquiry was held by the DCP, Bhubaneswar with regard to the conduct of the petitioner and others. The further submission is that the petitioner and the original owner, namely, Manjulata Sahoo had approached the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar with a compromise in respect of the case land to declare the Deed of Relinquishment as valid, but it was not accepted and when the very conduct of the petitioner is such, in view of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. i.e. Annexure-2, he should not be granted pre-arrest bail, as has been demanded by him. 6. Recorded the submission of learned counsel for the State. 7. In Course of hearing, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner produced copy of the order in respect of the original owner, namely, Manjulata Sahoo in ABLAPL No.11907 of 2024. The further submission is that the petitioner happens to be a witness to the cancellation deed claimed to be stage managed with the fraud having been committed in respect of the resolution of the proprietary concern and similarly situated like the co-accused, namely, Muralidhar Sahoo vide ABLAPL No.10441 of 2024. The copies of the orders in the ABLAPLs are produced by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate at the time of hearing. Considering the fact that the dispute is civil in nature and the Court under the impression that the investigation must have progressed considerably and since the co-accused persons including the original owner party to the cancellation deed have been released in the meantime pursuant to the orders in the ABLAPLs, the Court is inclined to extend the parity. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. 9. In the result, ABLAPL stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that upon surrender before the court of learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Bhubaneswar within a fortnight from today, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Badagad P.S. Case No.194 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.338 of 2024 subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court below, which shall be at liberty to impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case besides the following, such as, he shall co-operate the I.O. in the investigation until the same is concluded. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Sumitra