p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 3374 of 2026 Shyam Sundar Munda …. Petitioner(s) Mr. A.C. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party(s) Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 29.04.2026 01. 1. The petitioners are accused in connection with Sambalpur Town P.S. Case No. 353 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2761 of 2025 registered on the allegation of the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 189(2)/191(2)/308(2)/324(5)/352/356(3)/351(4) 329(3)/190 of BNS pending in the court of learned JMFC, Sambalpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction from the petitioners, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioners is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 3. The prosecution case is that the informant alleged that some ST and Dalit Organization people including the petitioners called themselves as Members of Paschima Odisha Adivasi Mahasangha, have been creating p. 2 disturbances over his land and spreading rumor that the statue of Birsa Munda has been destroyed by the informant. Though, the informant has not destroyed the statue of Birsa Munda but the petitioners along with other persons in the organization have blamed the informant regarding the destruction of the statue of Birsa Munda. It is further alleged that the informant has no contribution in destroying the statue of Birsa Munda . The petitioners along with other members have been spreading the said news and distributing the pamphlets by making him as accused. The petitioners along with other persons are also demanding Rs.2 lakhs and threatening to pay the same unless, they will defame the informant. 4. Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel for the State at the outset submits that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned notice under Section 35 (3) of Cr.P.C. has already been issued. He has also read out the statement of one Jaya Kumar Mirdha and other witnesses those who have very specifically stated that petitioner no.1 has demanded Rs.5.0 lakhs and threaten the informant. All the allegations are made against the said accused alone. 5. Therefore, at this stage I am not inclined to entertain this application in so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned. However, it is open for the petitioner no.1 to surrender before the court below and move for regular bail. If such application is filed, the courts below shall consider the same on the same day. 6. However, in so far as petitioners no.2 and 3 are concerned, I am inclined to grant the said petitioners p. 3 anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event the Petitioners no.2 and 3 are arrested, they shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer, subject to verification of criminal antecedent of similar nature. The release of the Petitioners shall also be subject to the condition that they shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when their presence is required by the I.O. for the purpose of investigation; they shall not indulge in similar criminal offences while on bail; they shall not threaten/harass/terrorize the informant in any manner whatsoever while on bail; and they shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of posting of the case, if not presented by sufficient cause. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 7. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok MOHAPATRA