IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 13617 of 2025 Soumya Ranjan Jena @ Bapi … Petitioner Mr. S. Mansingh, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate (informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 24.12.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is an application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Tangi P.S. Case No.792 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.787 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned NGN-cum-J.M.F.C., Tangi, Khurda, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 115(2)/296/ 303(2)/326(g)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of setting fire to the dwelling house of the informant after pouring petrol, and assaulting her and her husband. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Subash Mansingh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the house in question is not a house, rather it is a hut constructed over the land of the petitioner and that hut was set fire by the informant herself and thereby, the petitioner having no role in the commission of crime may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. In opposing such prayer for bail, Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned counsel, who enters appearance for the informant in Court today by filing Vakalatnama, which is taken on record, submits that the house in question belongs to the informant and the petitioner and five others had not only assaulted brutally the informant, who is a 67 years old lady and her husband, but also set fire to the house and, therefore, the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail. 3.2. In echoing the submission of the learned counsel for the informant, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. PP submits that the petitioner is having some criminal antecedents and he having prima facie found to have set the house of the informant on fire by assaulting her, the petitioner’s bail application may kindly be rejected. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for setting fire to the house of the informant as well as assaulting the informant, but the plea as advanced for the petitioner regarding dispute between the parties has nothing to do with the present criminal case, since the civil dispute has to be resolved by a Civil Court, but right now the investigation is going on and the Investigating Officer after finding some material against the petitioner has forwarded him to the Court. In the aforesaid situation, especially when the impugned rejection order reveals about some antecedent of the petitioner and there being allegation against him for setting fire to the house of the informant and assaulting her, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, when the investigation is going on. 5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge S.Sasmal Designation: Jr. Stenographer