IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3676 of 2026 Sujat Kandha … Petitioner Mr. S.K. Sahu, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL):06.05.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with BNPur PS Case No.99 of 2026 corresponding to GR Case No.647 of 2026 pending in the file of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.69/89/316(2)/ 351(2) of BNS, on the main allegation of cohabiting with the victim on the pretext of marriage and getting her pregnant, but subsequently terminating her pregnancy as well as deceiving her for a sum of Rs.1.2 Lakhs with some gold ornaments by refusing to marry her. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Swagat Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the family members of the petitioner and victim had fixed the marriage, but subsequently the victim blackmailed the petitioner and took Rs.1.5 Lakhs from him out of the negotiated amount of Rs.7 Lakhs to annul the marriage and she had subsequently manufactured this case only to harass the petitioner, who is a Government servant and, therefore, the petitioner having detained in custody since 11.03.2026, may kindly be granted bail. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Susanta Kumar Baral, learned counsel for the informant submits that not only the petitioner is a Government servant, but also the victim herself is a nurse and she had been deceived by the petitioner not only for cash, but also with some gold ornaments and the petitioner had allegedly kept physical relationship with the victim on the assurance of marriage and got her pregnant, but subsequently caused her pregnancy terminated and, thereafter, he refused to marry the victim. Further, Mr. Baral submits that since the investigation is going on, it would be too early to jump to any conclusion in this case and the conduct of the petitioner does not justify his release on bail. More or less is the submission advanced by Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner by harping on the accusation and continuation of the investigation. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for cohabiting with the victim and causing her pregnancy terminated, but the investigation is going on and it is too early to say anything on the merits of the case. In the aforesaid facts and situation and regard being had to the materials placed on record together with continuation of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita