IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 13475 of 2025 Bijaya Kumar Behera @ Bijay Behera …. Petitioner Mr. P. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S.K. Lenka, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 01.12.2025 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.3325 of 2025 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., (Panposh), Rourkela arising out of Raghunathpali P.S. Case No.684 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 303(2)/317(4)/3(5) of BNS. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to Annexure-2 that in the case at hand there was E-Way Bill covering the materials. Hence, ex-facie the allegations are incorrect. Hence, the Petitioner may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail and submits that the Petitioner has antecedents of similar nature which runs thus; i. Raghunathpali PS Case No.129 Dt.05.08.2021 U/s.379/411/34 of IPC ii. Secor-7 PS Case No.85 Dt.25.07.2025 U/s.379/411/34 IPC iii. Raghunathpali PS Case No.149 Dt.19.07.2017 U/s.379/411/34 IPC iv. Raghunathpali PS Case No.200 of 2019 U/s.379/411/34 IPC v. Raghunathpali PS Case No.201 of 2019 U/s.379/411/34 IPC vi. Raghunathpali PS Case No.167 of 2017 U/s.379/411 IPC vii. Tangarpali PS Case No.74 of 2018 U/s.379/411/34 IPC viii. Raghunathpali PS Case No.88 of 2007 U/s.379/411 IPC ix. Raghunathpali PS Case No.224 of 2015 U/s.379/411 IPC x. Plantsite PS Case No.539 of 2025 U/s.303(2)/317(2) BNS It is also submits that in the last case i.e. Plantsite P.S. Case No.539 of 2025 the allegations are identical. Hence, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail. 5. Considering the nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant exceptional remedy of pre-arrest bail and finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the given the nature of allegation ensconcing the Petitioner by order of pre-arrest bail would derail the ongoing investigation. 6. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi