IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 6730 of 2025 Raghunath Nath …. Petitioner Mr. B.S. Dasparida, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S.K. Lenka, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 10.09.2025 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.693 of 2025 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Soro arising out of Soro P.S. Case No.326 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 85/80(2)/103(1)/3(5) of BNS read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that only because the Petitioner is the father-in-law of the deceased, he has been falsely implicated in the case at hand. Hence, he may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail inter alia on the ground that preliminary charge sheet has been filed keeping the investigation open. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the husband and the mother-in-law are in custody and hence no leniency ought to be shown to the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner on instruction submits that in the meanwhile the mother-in-law has been released on bail by the learned Court in seisin. 6. This Court perused the preliminary charge sheet. 7. It is apt to note that though initially the FIR was instituted under Section 103(1) of BNS but while filing the preliminary charge sheet the same has been filed under Sections 85/108/3(5) of BNS against two accused persons who were taken into custody. 8. On perusal of the final form it is seen that the Investigating Agency has opined thus:- “xxx xxx xxx The deceased was present alone in the pucca house and other family members had visited the house of Manjulata Giri, their sisterinlaw to attend a feast arranged in connection with AstavPrahari. Taking this opportunity the deceased committed suicidal hanging inside the pucca house. When Dayanidhi Nath and Gayanidhi Laxmidhar Nath returned back at about 2PM they found the main entrance door of the house was locked from inside. xxx xxx xxx” 9. This Court also perused the statement of neighbours namely Sujata Nath and Sasmita Nath cited as C.Ws.11 & 12 respectively indicating the circumstance in which the tragic incident happened. 10. On a conspectus of materials on record since prima facie there is no allegation qua the present Petitioner, this Court directs that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioner shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper. 11. It is needless to state that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of the ABLAPL. It ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioner which has to be probed independently. 12. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Ayesha