p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.13528 of 2025 Sankar Gouda & Anr. ….. Petitioner(s) Mr. Sidhartha Sankar Ray(2), Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 23.12.2025 Order No. 01. F.I.R No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 661 18.11.2025 Aska G.R Case No.2040 of 2025 Pending in the Court of learned JMFC(Cog), Aska U/S. 140(1)/115(2)/ 117(3)/35l(2)/ 109(l)/3(5) of BNS. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The petitioners being in custody in connection with Aska P.S. Case No.661 of 2025, corresponding to G.R Case No.2040 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned JMFC(Cog), Aska registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 140(1)/115(2)/117(3)/35l(2)/109(l)/3(5) of the BNS have filed this petition for their release on bail. Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Dec-2025 18:01:25 Signature Not Verified p. 2 3. The brief fact of the case in short is that one Ranka Nayak lodged a written report before the police alleging there in that on ll.11.2025 his son had been to village Debabhi to watch melody. It is alleged that the petitioners along with two others forcibly lifted him from the melody place and assaulted him by means of wooden planks. Getting such information the informant rushed to the spot and shifted his son to M.K.C.G., Berhampur for treatment. Basing on the aforesaid allegation Gangapur P.S.Case No.661/2025, was registered and police investigated into the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that these Petitioners being arrested in this case are in custody since 20.11.2025. He submits that due to misunderstanding between the parties some hot words have been exchanged for which the present case has been registered and the allegation as stated in the F.I.R. are omnibus in nature and there is absolutely no allegation of any specific overt act against the present Petitioners. In view of all these above, when the Petitioners are permanent resident of District Ganjam as also the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise, he urges for consideration of prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Dec-2025 18:01:25 Signature Not Verified p. 3 6. Considering the facts and keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement of keeping the Petitioners inside the custody any further. Accordingly, this Court directs that the Petitioners be released on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. the petitioners shall appear before the local Police Station on 1st Monday of every month between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till the conclusion of the trial; ii. the Petitioners shall not indulge themselves in any criminal activities in future; iii. the Petitioners shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner; Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 7. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali