IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.2694 of 2026 (1) Gokula Parida (2) Okila Parida (3) Amina Parida (4) Sesana Parida (5) Tapan Parida …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, AGA Mr. Achyutananda Pattanaik, Advocate (for the informant) CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 22.04.2026 01. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Jankia P.S. Case No.258 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.548 of 2025 for the commission of offences under Sections 115(2)/117(2)/324(4)/3(5)/109 of B.N.S., 2023 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog.), Khurda. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction from the petitioners, submits that, except 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. On 23.07.2025, the informant lodged a report before Jankia P.S., alleging that on the same day at about 11:00 A.M., due to previous enmity, the petitioners assaulted the informant by means of a lathi and an iron rod. Hence, this case. 5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 109 of B.N.S., 2023 was not included in the F.I.R. Therefore, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.9040 of 2025. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.08.2025 disposed of the said application, recording that all the offences are bailable. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners surrendered before the Court and are presently on Court bail. When the matter stood thus, charge-sheet has been filed including the offence under Section 109 of B.N.S., 2023. 6. Learned counsel for the informant submits that three persons have been injured on the incident whereas one of the injured namely, Ratikanta Behera has received grievous injury. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that a second anticipatory bail application in the facts scenario in the present case is misplaced because in any case the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vrs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 SC 831. 8. At this stage, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw this petition to move appropriate application before the learned trial Court for extension of bail by relying upon the judgment of Sushila Aggarwal (supra). 9. With this observation, the ABLAPL is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna