IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2040 of 2026 Deepak Kumar Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. S. Senapati, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 22.04.2026 01. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.160 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Soro, arising out of Khaira P.S. Case No.26 of 2026 for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 85/103(1)/80/3(5) of BNS read with Section 4 of D.P. Act. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.01.2026 at 11:30 AM the informant appeared at PS and presented a written report alleging there in that his sister Sujata Behera’s marriage was solemnized with her husband Deepak Kumar Mohapatra-Petitioner in the year of 2014. During marriage his father had given gold ornaments, household articles as well as Cash of Rs.2,00,000/- to the groom side. His sister blessed with a female child. After that brother-in-law of Complt. tortured his sister both physically and mentally by demanding Cash of Rs-5,00,000/- with instigation by the in-laws. 4. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. Case is pending in any other Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Soro by order dated 13.02.2026 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 13.02.2026, it is seen that the same was during the currency of investigation. 7. It is stated at the Bar that in the meanwhile charge sheet has already been filed. 8. Taking into account that the impugned order was passed during the currency of investigation, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application of the Petitioner. 9. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner-husband to renew his prayer before the learned Court in seisin who shall consider the prayer, if so made, without being prejudice by earlier order which was during the currency of investigation. 10. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Ayesha