Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.14596 of 2024 1) Suresh Chandra Sahu @ Suresh Sahu ..... Petitioners 2) Sarojini Sahoo @ Laxmi Sahu Represented By Adv. - Judhisthir Sahoo -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) The Victim-cum-informant Represented By Adv. – A.Sethy, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 20.01.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the State. Perused the records. 3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioners for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 417/376(2)(n)/379/506/294/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(1)(w)/3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act,1989 in Special G.R. Case No.80 of 2024 of the Court of learned Special Judge-cum-A.D.J., Bhanjanagar arising out of Tarasing P.S. Case No.376 of 2024. 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioners that one Sriram Prasad Sahu @ Lipu is the principal accused in the present Page 2 of 3. case. He further submitted that the present Petitioners are the parents of the principal accused. He further submitted that as per the F.I.R. allegation, the principal accused committed rape on the victim/ informant. So far the present Petitioners are concerned, the allegation against them is that when the victim reported the matter to them, they abused her in filthy language and she was driven out of their house. He further submitted that the present Petitioners are no way involved in the present crime and that no case under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. and Section 3 of SC and ST (PoA) Act is made out against the present Petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other objected to the release of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail on the ground of gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He further submitted that the alleged crime is heinous in nature. So far the present petitioners are concerned, learned counsel for the State submitted that although no case under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. is made out against the present Petitioners, however, a case under Section 3 of SC and ST (PoA) Act is well made out against the present Petitioners. 6. Perused the case diary as well as 183 of the B.N.S.S. of the victim. On perusal of the statement recorded under 183 of the B.N.S.S. it appears that the victim has made direct allegation against the principal accused and on such allegation a case under Section 376 is well made out against the principal accused. So far the present Petitioners are concerned, only allegation against them is that they had abused the victim in filthy language and she was driven out of their house. On perusal of the materials, this Court is of the prima facie view that the case under Section 376 of I.P.C. and 3 SC and ST Act is not made out against the present Petitioners. Page 3 of 3. 7. In such view of the matter, although I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners, however it is observed that, in the event the Petitioners surrender and move for bail before the learned court in seisin over the matter within a period of three weeks from today, they shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may deem just and proper. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 8. The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil