IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.8505 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010539892026 1. Dhananjay Debnath @ Dhananjaya Mandal Jacky 2. Basudev Debnath @ Basudeba Debanath 3. Gudu Debnath @ Debanath 4. Sabita Debnath @ Debanatha …. Petitioners Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C. R. Swain, AGA Mr. P. K. Maharaj, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 02.09.2026 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.1682 of 2026 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara arising out of Jamboo Marine P.S. Case No.142 of 2026 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 85/115(2)/74/89/351(2)/296/3(5) of BNS r/w Section 4 of DP Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that exaggerated allegations have been made in a routine manner against the Petitioners of whom Petitioner No.1 is the husband and Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the in-laws. Hence, no credence shall be attached to the same and the Petitioners may be enlarged on pre- arrest bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as informant oppose such prayer. 5. Learned counsel for the State referring to the statements on record including that of the independent witnesses submits that prima facie the offence is well made out. Hence, the Petitioners ought not to be enlarged on bail. 6. This Court is not oblivious of the unhealthy trend of all the in-laws being painted with the same brush in which case the Apex Court also had occasion to express concerned, but the same has to be examined in the factual matrix of each case, since it is trite that each case has its own peculiarity. 7. Taking into account the nature of allegations and the recitals in the Case Diary including that of the independent witnesses, this Court is of the prima facie view that the offence as alleged is well made out. 8. Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail in respect of Petitioner No.1 (Dhananjay Debnath @ Dhananjaya Mandal Jacky). 9. Accordingly, the ABLAPL in respect of Petitioner No.1 stands disposed of. 10. So far as the ABLAPL in respect of Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, taking into account the nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail. However, it is directed that the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 (Basudev Debnath @ Basudeba Debanath, Gudu Debnath @ Debanath and Sabita Debnath @ Debanatha respectively) may surrender before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in connection with the aforementioned case within one month from today. In the event of their surrender and motion for bail, the same be considered by the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara on merits, in the first hour of the day. In the event of rejection of the prayer for bail by the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are at liberty to move the higher forum for bail in the second hour on the same day. 11. On being so moved, the higher forum is requested to make an endeavor to dispose of the bail application of the Petitioners on the same day. The case diary shall be made available to the concerned courts to facilitate disposal of the bail application of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara is called upon to transmit the case record to the higher forum in the second hour expeditiously in the event of rejection of the bail application by him. Ground of parity, if any, may be considered by the learned court(s) below. 12. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. 13. U.C.C. as per rules. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views regarding the complicity of the Petitioners which has to be adjudicated in an independent manner in an ongoing investigation. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina