Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 248 (ORI)

RAHUL KARAN TARAI v. STATE OF ODISHA

ABLAPL/10548/2025 · 2026-01-12

R K Pattanaik

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.10548 of 2025 Rahul Karan Tarai …. Petitioner M/s. S. Das, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, ASC Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate (for Informant) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 12.01.2026 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. 2. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS by the petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.426 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.915 of 2025 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal on the grounds stated. 3. It is submitted to the Court that the mediation has failed. The mediation report is at flag ‘C’ and it reveals that the mediation has been unsuccessful. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the in-laws of the petitioner are on bail by order of this Court dated 12th August, 2025 vide ABLAPL No.9185 of 2025, a copy of which is at flag-A1. Recorded the objection of the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner alleged to have ill-treated and assaulted the informant while she p. 2 was at Bangalore with him as revealed from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. A copy of the said statement is made available to the Court for its perusal. The allegation is about demand of Rs.40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) with other items with omnibus allegations made against the petitioner and in-laws. Of course, from the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is made understood that while she was at Bangalore on 25th May, 2024 during the wee hours at 4.00 A.M., she was abused by the petitioner in a drunken state. 5. Considering the above facts and objection of the State and as the allegations are against all the accused persons including the accused husband, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail but to direct the petitioner to surrender before the court below and to go on bail. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, the ABLAPL petition stands disposed of with the direction to the petitioner shall surrender before the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal within a fortnight from today and upon such surrender, he shall be released on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.915 of 2025 subject to conditions imposed upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, 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 not cause any harm or injury to the informant wife in any manner whatsoever after being released and to p. 3 cooperate in the investigation and report the I.O. as and when necessary for the said purpose and to continue to do so, till the same is concluded. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R. K. Pattanaik) Judge RKM