p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 3908 of 2026 Sabita Tripathy and annother …. Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Baug, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party(s) Ms. S. Devi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 29.04.2026 01. 1. The petitioners are accused in connection with Chandrashekharpur P.S. Case No. 159 of 2026 corresponding to C.T. Case No.436 of 2026 registered on the allegation of the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296(b)/3(5)/316(2)/351(3) of BNS pending in the court of JMFC-2, Bhubaneswar. 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 accused persons are the daughter and son-in-law of the informant and taking advantage of the simplicity & innocence of the p. 2 informant creating disturbance in the family of the Informant and successfully separated the elder son and his wife also from the younger son and his wife. The accused persons took around Rs- 6 lakh to the informant for stating that this amount is required for court case. On 01.01.2026 the accused persons took the gold ornaments like one necklace, 5 gold bangles, 6 rings of the wife of the younger son of the informant and also refused to refund the ornaments to the informant The accused person took the khata/khatiyans of land and other relevant and important documents from the informants house and also took the signature of the informant and her husband in the blank paper. On 09.02.2026 at around 11.30 am, when the informant and her husband refused to obey to the request of the illegal demands the accused persons, then the accused persons broke the C.C TV cameras and threatened of dire consequences and misbehaved and scolded in the slangs and threatened to sell the property. When the informant requested the accused persons to withdraw the case of her younger son then the accused threatened to involve them in false cases. On 01.02.2026 when informant and her husband visited the accused to discuss about the gold materials both the accused send them out of the house. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that p. 3 the FIR has been registered by mother of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 is the son in law of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this court to the civil proceeding pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Bhubaneswar submits that the dispute is essentially regarding family property. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. Regard being had to the nature of allegation and gravity of offence, I am inclined to grant the petitioners anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event the Petitioners 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. p. 4 7. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok MOHAPATRA