IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.4239 of 2026 Udaya Ranjan Panda …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Biswabhusan Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Jateswar Naik, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 01.05.2026 02. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Tirtol P.S. Case No.156 of 2026 corresponding to C.T. Case No.22 of 2026 registered on the allegation of the offences under Sections 109/115(2)/126(2)/296/3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 4. On 09.03.2026 at about 1:00 PM, the complainant appeared at the Police Station and lodged a written report alleging that on 08.03.2026 at about 11:00 PM, while his brother, namely Ajaya Kumar Hati, was returning from Kanakpur Basanta Bagicha after watching a night cricket match, Udaya Panda (the present petitioner), along with Susanta Panda and Prasanta Panda, intercepted him. It is alleged that they abused him in obscene language, making caste-based remarks, and assaulted him with a sharp weapon, as a result of which he sustained a bleeding injury on his head. It is further alleged that when Sanjaya Hati intervened, the accused persons also assaulted him, causing injury to his eye. The accused persons are also alleged to have assaulted Rashmi Ranjan Sahoo. Hence, the F.I.R. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two accused persons, namely, Susanta Panda and Prasanta Panda, who have been arrested, has already been enlarged on regular bail. Hence, he seeks parity. He further submits that, in view of the allegation involving offences under the SC & ST Act, the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment in Pramod Kumar Ray v. State of Orissa, reported in (2017) 67 OCR 309. 6. Regard being had to the nature of allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner on anticipatory bail. However, it is open for the petitioner to surrender and move application for regular bail before the trial Court. . It is also open for the petitioner to raise all the grounds as has been raised in the present petition including the ground of parity. In the event the petitioner surrenders and moves application for bail, it is expected that the learned Courts below shall decide the bail application on its own merit on the same day. 7. With this observation, the ABLAPL is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna