p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1665 of 2026 Jagannath Mishra …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Ghanashyam Dash, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 23.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner, being in custody in Brahmabarda P.S. Case No.212 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. (Sessions) No.349 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandikhole, registered for the alleged commission of F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 212 05.09. 2025 Brahmabarda C.T. (Sessions) No.349 of 2025, pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandikhole. 85/80/ 103(1)/ 3(5) of the BNS Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Apr-2026 12:29:50 Signature Not Verified p. 2 offences under Sections 85/80/103(1)/3(5) of the BNS, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner and his involvement is not reflected in the preliminary charge sheet. It is further submitted that the death occurred due to ante- mortem hanging and there is no material to connect the Petitioner with the alleged offence. It is also contended that investigation has substantially progressed and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail, contending that the allegations disclose commission of a heinous offence involving cruelty to a married woman leading to her unnatural death within the matrimonial home. It is further submits that the matter is serious in nature and the Petitioner’s release may adversely affect the prosecution case. 6. Considering the nature of allegations, the materials available on record and the fact that the death of the deceased occurred under unnatural circumstances within the matrimonial home, coupled with the allegations of prior cruelty, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. p. 3 8. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail at a later stage, if so advised, in accordance with law. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun