IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMA No.135 of 2025 Sarojini Behera … Petitioner Mr. P.K. Routray, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 26.02.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is an application by the petitioner for cancellation of bail on violation of conditions. 3. Heard, Mr. Prasanna Kumar Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 4. It is not disputed that OPNos.2 to 3 were granted bail by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under SC & ST (PoA) Act, Cuttack, but when the petitioner approached the Court for cancellation of bail, the present impugned order was passed, which inter- alia states as under:- “The conditions were imposed on the accused while granting the bail that he shall not indulge himself in similar activities while on bail and he shall not indulge himself in extending any threat, promise and inducement to the victim and other witnesses by any manner. It appears from the photo copy of the complaint petition filed by the informant of the present case before the IIC, Markatnagar PS dated 29.07.2025 that it is not registered. Hence, on the mere allegation that the accused persons threatened the informant and her family members cannot be accepted as a good ground to cancel the bail application. There is no well-founded ground that the accused persons have misused the liberty granted to them and violated the conditions imposed by this court. In such premises, the petition filed by the informant is rejected being devoid of merit. Put up on 17.09.2025 for hearing.” 5. On a cumulative consideration of the materials placed on record together with the averments taken in the application for cancellation of bail with documents annexed thereto, this Court hardly finds any error apparent in the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under SC & ST (PoA) Act, Cuttack. Hence, there is no scope for interference in this matter. 6. Accordingly, the CRLMA stands dismissed. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Designation: Sr. Stenographer