Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.2533 of 2026 Susanta Nayak @ Hari ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Suryakanta Dwibedi -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Mr. D.K. Sahoo, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 22.04.2026 Order No. 01. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Purighat P.S. Case No.33 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No.76 of 2026, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the present anticipatory bail application arises out of Purighat P.S. Case No.33 of 2026 which was registered at 19 Hours of 23.01.2026 for commission of the alleged offences as indicated hereinabove. He further submitted that the present FIR is a counter blast to the Page 2 of 3. Purighat P.S. Case No.32 of 2026 which was registered at the night of 23.01.2026 for commission of alleged offences under Sections126(2), 115(2), 76, 3(5) of BNS. He further submitted that the offences initially alleged in the FIR at Annexure-1 to the bail application are all bailable in nature. However, in the meantime some of the co-accused persons have been forwarded by adding the offence under Section 76 of BNS which is non-bailable in nature. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there exists an apprehension that the Petitioner might be arrested and forwarded to the jail custody. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner is having only one criminal antecedent and that he is ready and willing to abide by any stringent terms and conditions that is likely to be imposed by this Court in the event of his release on pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the release of the Petitioners on bail on the ground of gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He further submitted that since there exists a rivalry between the family, there is every likelihood that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail he might indulge in similar criminal activities. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the bail application of the Petitioner be rejected at this stage. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful consideration of the surrounding facts and circumstances as well as the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, in the facts and circumstances of the Page 3 of 3. present case, the Petitioner is permitted to surrender before the Court below and move an application for bail within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the learned trial Court shall release the Petitioner on bail subject to such terms and conditions as it may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, but subject to verification of criminal antecedent of the Petitioner. In the event the Petitioner is found to have more than one criminal antecedent, then this order shall stand automatically revoked. Violation of any of the aforesaid terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 7. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout