Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5283 (ORI)

SARADA PRASANNA ROUT v. STATE OF ODISHA

ABLAPL/14775/2025 · 2026-02-19

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.14775 of 2025 Sarada Prasanna Rout & another …. Petitioners Mr. S.K.Jena, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K.Mohanty, ASC Mr.Sk. Attiullah, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 19.02.2026 03. 1. The name of Mr. P.K.Das, learned counsel who was appearing for the informant be deleted, as prayed for. Mr. Sk. Attiullah, learned counsel and his associates instead appear for the informant and files the Vakalatnama today, which is accepted and taken up on record with a direction to reflect their names in the cause title and brief. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS by the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Bonth P.S. Case No.213 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2317 of 2025 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak on the grounds stated. 4. Gone through the FIR as at Annexure-1, which narrates the details of the allegations made against the petitioners, lodged at the instance of the informant. In fact, petitioner No.1 p. 2 is the husband and petitioner No.2 happens to be the mother-in- law of the informant. As per the F.I.R., i.e., Annexure-1, the informant alleges ill-treatment in the hands of the husband and mother-in-law. However, the Court finds that there is no allegation of any dowry demand and related torture meted out to the informant. It is alleged rather that petitioner No.1 is having another woman in his life. For the said reason, as it appears, there has been disturbance in the marital life of petitioner No.1 and the informant. That apart, there is no specific allegation against petitioner No.2 being the mother-in- law. Considering the same and the nature of allegations, objections of learned counsels for the informant as well as State, this Court is though not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to them, however, is of the view that they should be directed to surrender before the learned court below for being released with stringent conditions. 5. Accordingly, it is ordered. 6. In the result, the ABLAPL is disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that in the event, the petitioners surrender before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in connection with Bonth P.S. Case No.213 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2317 of 2025 within fifteen days from today, they shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/-(rupees thirty thousand) each with one solvent surety each for the like amount with other conditions imposed besides the following, such as, they shall not cause any harm to the informant and to not commit any p. 3 such further mischief with her, while on bail and cooperate the I.O. in the investigation of the case, till the same is pending. 7. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge M.K.Rout