IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.658 of 2026 Sachin Baliarsingh …. Petitioner Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 11.02.2026 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. 2. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS by the petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Nirakarpur P.S. Case No.83 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.287 of 2016 pending in the court of learned N.G.N.- cum-J.M.F.C., Tangi on the grounds stated. 3. Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1. The alleged incident, for which, the report has been lodged is of the year 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present accused is not directly involved in the alleged incident, though, it has been claimed to be a case of conspiracy. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached in ABLAPL No.12722 of 2022 and it was disposed of for not being maintainable since by then process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued and pending execution. 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the ABLAPL on the same ground that the process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and its execution is under way. In support of such contention, the citations as at Flags-H, I, J, K & L are referred to. On the other hand, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Manika Vrs. State of UP and another and decision of the Apex Court in Asha Dubey Vrs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.4564 of 2024 with the submission that there is no absolute bar. 5. Under the circumstances of the case narrated therein, the Apex Court in Asha Dubey (supra) held and concluded that consideration of anticipatory bail during the pendency of process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. is not entirely barred as such there is no total embargo. It is further made to appear from the above decision that the accused therein though implicated there was no incriminating material against him and ultimately, allowed the bail with a direction for him to co- operate in the further investigation. 6. Recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties. Having regard to the claim that the petitioner is claimed to be staying at Bangalore even before 2016 when the FIR was lodged and in support thereof the Aadhar card, IT returns etc. are produced and considering the nature of allegations revealed from the FIR i.e. Annexure-1 and that, there is no direct involvement revealed therein except conspiracy alleged against the petitioner and another and the fact that the occurrence is of the year 2016, this Court regard being had to the citations referred to by both sides, though, not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to him but is of the view that he should be directed to surrender before the learned court below for being released with suitable conditions imposed. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the ABLAPL is disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that in the event, the petitioner surrenders before the learned N.G.N.-cum-J.M.F.C., Tangi in connection with Nirakarpur P.S. Case No.83 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.287 of 2016 within three weeks from today, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount with such other conditions imposed as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU