p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.2967 of 2026 (1) Suryakanta Ranasingh (2) Sudhir Ranasingh (3) Santi @ Santilata Ranasingh (4) Mithun @ Chandrakanta Ranasingh (5) Mitu @ Rashmi Ranjan Ranasingh …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 23.04.2026 01. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.195 of 2026 arising out of Kamakhyanagar P.S. Case No.115 of 2026 registered on the allegation of the commission of offences under Sections 115(2)/296/3(5)/82/85 of B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction from the petitioners, submits that, except p. 2 the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioners are pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.02.2026, the informant appeared at the Police Station and submitted a written report alleging that she had married Suryakanta Ranasingh (petitioner No. 1) on 11.07.2018 at Akhandalamani Temple, Puri, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, her father had given a gold necklace, two gold rings, a pair of earrings, along with other household articles as dowry. It is further alleged that after about two years of marriage, all the petitioners subjected the informant to physical and mental cruelty in connection with a demand for additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On 20.12.2021, the petitioners allegedly abused the informant in obscene language, assaulted her, and drove her out of the matrimonial home, asking her to bring additional dowry. Upon learning of the incident, the informant’s father went to the petitioners’ house to resolve the matter, but he too p. 3 was allegedly abused in obscene language and assaulted by the petitioners. It is further alleged that on 22.01.2026, when the informant along with her father went to her in-laws’ house, they came to know that her husband (petitioner No.1) had married another woman from Nayagarh. Hence, the FIR. 5. At the instance of the wife of the petitioner No.1, the F.I.R. has been registered. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the informant whereas the other petitioners are the in-laws of the informant. The dispute is essentially arising out of a matrimonial discord. 6. Regard being had to the nature of allegation and the fact that the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event the petitioners are arrested, they shall be released by the Arresting Officer, subject to the verification of the criminal antecedent of similar nature. The release of the petitioners shall also be subject to the conditions that they shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and p. 4 when their presence is required for the purpose of investigation; they shall not indulge in similar criminal offences while on bail. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 7. With this observation, the ABLAPL is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna