p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 2574 of 2026 Urmila Sharma …. Petitioner Mr. B.K. Ragada, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA Mr. B.M. Dutta, Adv. (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 22.04.2026 I.A. No. 431 of 2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 2. This I.A. has been filed by the informant- intervenor to intervene in the present ABLAPL. 3. Considering the recitals in the I.A. and the submissions made, I.A. is allowed. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Order No. ABLAPL No. 2574 of 2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. p. 2 2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.56 of 2026 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda, arising out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.17 of 2026 for commission of offences punishable under Section 85/ 296/ 109(1)/ 351(3)/ 303(2) of BNS. 3. The following is the gist of the allegation in the FIR; On 09.01.2026 at about 8:15 PM, the complainant appearing before the Police Station submitted a written report stating that after her marriage, her husband and mother-in-law tortured her physically and mentally. She alleged that her husband left her and was presently residing with another woman. Consequently, the complainant has been living with her daughter at Chowki Pada. But her mother-in-law tortured and abused her in filthy languages. On 28.12.2025 her mother-in-law stolen her gas induction stove to prevent her from cooking and on 04.01.2026 she also left a live snake in her bed room with an intention to kill her and her daughter. On 06.01.2026 her mother-in-law has stolen her oppo mobile phone from her bed room and threatened her with dire consequence. Basing on such report, Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2026 was registered under Sections 85/ 296/ 303(2)/ 109(1)/ 351(3) of the BNS against the Petitioner. p. 3 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that considering the age of the Petitioner and the nature of allegation, she may be protected by pre-arrest bail. 5. Learned counsel for the informant opposes such prayer, inter alia, drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph-1 of the bail petition, wherein the name of the Court in seisin is mentioned as J.M.F.C.- V, Bhubaneswar and the recitals in paragraph-5, it is submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands by mentioning the name of the Court in seisin wrongly and qua the recitals in paragraph-5 of the I.A. which are extracted hereunder, it is submitted that the Petitioner has filed a case of “dowry torture” against the informant. “5. That taking advantage of the situation, the Petitioner/accused has been continuously threatening, abusing and harassing the informant and attempting to drive her out of the house.” Hence, it is submitted that taking into account the nature of allegation, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is liable to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the State also opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail. 7. This Court perused the materials on record submitted by the learned counsel for the State. 8. On going through the same, this Court is persuaded to hold that the Petitioner is entitled to be p. 4 released on pre-arrest. Hence, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions deemed just and proper with further conditions that he will cooperate with the investigation. 9. Violation of any of the above condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 10. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. 11. U.C.C. as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi