IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.8389 of 2026 Deepak Behera …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Informant …. Opposite Parties Mr. U. C. Jena, ASC ABLAPL No.6058 of 2026 Gudu @ Abinash Behera …. Petitioner Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. U. C. Jena, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 27.07.2026 01. 1. Since both the ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, on the consent of the parties, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with T.R. Case No.82 of 2022 pending on the file of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge SC & ST (PoA) Act, Khordha, arising out of Khurda P.S. Case No.431 of 2022 for commission of offences punishable under Sections-147/148/354/354- A/341/323/325/506/149 of I.P.C read with U/s. 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of S.C and S.T, ( POA) Act. 1989 (Amendment 2015) and subsequently Charge sheet has been filed U/s-147/ 148/ 354/ 354-A/ 341/ 323/ 506/ 336/ 427 of I.P.C read with U/s. 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of S.C and S.T, ( POA) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2015). 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits, with reference to Annexure-3, that the petitioner in ABLAPL No.8389 of 2026 (Deepak Behera) belongs to the Scheduled Caste and on instruction learned counsel for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.6058 of 2026, submits that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.6058 of 2026 (Gudu @ Abinash Behera) is also a scheduled caste person. The caste certificate submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Jena, appearing for the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.6058 of 2026 is taken on record and referring to the same, it is submitted by the learned counsel that at the very offences under Section Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (PoA) Act, 1989, are not made out. Though charge sheet has been filed under the said sections, learned counsel for the Petitioners clarify that, apart from the Petitioners, several other persons have also been arrayed as accused in the case and the reference to the special act ought to be understood in that context. Taking note of the same, this Court dispenses with issuance of notice to the Opposite Party. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the incident happened during the immersion process of deity without any pre- meditation. Hence, in such background the Petitioners may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer since the charge sheet has already been filed against the Petitioners which according to him show that there is prima facie case against them. 7. It is his further submission that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.6058 of 2026 (Gudu @ Abinash Behera) has criminal proclivity in as much as he has been cited as accused in Khurda Model P.S. Case No.76 of 2018, under Sections 294/323/506/34 IPC. 8. It is trite that criminal antecedent cannot be absolute bar in granting pre-arrest bail. In this context reference can be made to the order of the Apex Court in the case of Ankit Mishra V. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 809. 9. Considering the nature of allegations and filing of the charge sheet, it is directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioners shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper. 10. It is further stated that the Petitioner shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation. 11. Accordingly, the ABLAPLs stand disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya