Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.2532 of 2026 Surama Barik and another ..... Petitioners Represented by Adv. - Subrat Kumar Nayak -versus- State of Orissa ..... 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 Kakatpur P.S. Case No.369 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.392 of 2025, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Kakatpur, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 296, 74, 115(2), 117(2), 133, 109, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the present case is a counter blast to the FIR in Kakatpur P.S. Case No.368 of 2025. He further contended that initially Kakatpur P.S. Case No.368 of 2025 was registered at 19 Hours of 21.12.2025 alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 126(2), Page 2 of 3. 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 109, 3(5) of BNS at the instance of the husband of the Petitioner No.2. In the FIR lodged by the Petitioners’ family they have alleged serious injuries sustained by their family members. He further contended that as a counter blast to the aforesaid case the present FIR has been registered as Kakatpur P.S. Case No.369 of 2025 at 19:30 Hour on 21.12.2025. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured in the present case are not grievous in nature. He further contended that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by them. 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 offence under Section 109 of BNS has been added, the injuries sustained by the injured must have been serious. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the bail application of the Petitioners 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, further taking note of the fact that the present case is a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the husband of the Petitioner No.2 before the very same police station, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioners are permitted to surrender before the Court below and move an application for bail within three weeks from today. In such Page 3 of 3. eventuality, the learned trial Court shall release the Petitioners 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 Petitioners and injury report of the injured. In the event the injuries sustained by the injured are found to be grievous in nature and the Petitioners are found to have any criminal antecedent, then this order stands 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