Priyabrata Nayak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S)
2026 Latest Caselaw 3668 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3668 Ori
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Priyabrata Nayak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 21 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                      ABLAPL No.2116 of 2026

                                    Priyabrata Nayak              ....             Petitioner(s)

                                                                 Mr. Suresh Kumar Panda, Adv.

                                                              -versus-
                                    State of Odisha                ....       Opposite Party(s)

                                                                     Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC

                                           CORAM:
                                           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                                              ORDER

Order No. 21.04.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

3. The Petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection

with Odagaon P.S. Case No.30 of 2026, corresponding to

G.R. Case No.51 of 2026, pending in the Court of learned

N.G.N.-cum-J.M.F.C., Nayagarh for the alleged commission

of offences punishable under Sections 126(2)/296/309(4)/

351(2) of BNSS and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, has filed this

petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 for release on

pre-arrest bail.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner was

Designation: Senior Stenographer

found to be using obscene language against the Prime

Minister of India and the Chief Minister of Odisha and was

making such videos viral on social media platforms. On

27.01.2026, while the informant and his friend, named

Mithun, were proceeding through Village Bhaliadihi, they

came across the Petitioner. Upon being questioned by the

informant regarding the reasons for creating and circulating

such objectionable reels targeting the Prime Minister of

India and the Chief Minister of Odisha, the Petitioner

became aggressive, used obscene and abusive language and

physically assaulted both the informant and his friend by

slapping them. It is further alleged that thereafter, the

Petitioner forcibly snatched the informant's motorcycle, cash

amounting to Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and a

gold chain. Subsequently, the police arrived at the spot and

rescued the informant and his friend from the Petitioner.

Hence, this case.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is

not an iota of truth in the F.I.R. and the Petitioner has been

falsely implicated due to previous enmity. The F.I.R. has

been maliciously lodged with false allegations to harass and

defame the Petitioner. It is further contended that the

present F.I.R. is a counterblast to the earlier F.I.R. dated

28.01.2026, filed by the Petitioner's mother against the

informant and others, which is registered as Odagaon P.S.

Case No. 33 of 2026.

6. The counsel argues that, to shield themselves from

liability, the informant and associates lodged the present

F.I.R. prior to the registration of the complaint filed by the

Petitioner's mother. It is alleged that the informant and

members associated with Bajrang Dal and the Bhartiya

Janata Party came to the Petitioner's house armed with

deadly weapons, intending to kidnap him, as he had been

making reels criticizing their activities. Upon resistance by

the Petitioner's family, they allegedly abused and assaulted

them, including the women members. On arrival of the

police, most of the accused fled, though two were

apprehended.

7. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a social

worker with a good reputation who raises his voice against

illegal activities, irrespective of political affiliation. Due to

his actions, he has been targeted and falsely implicated. The

counsel apprehends that, in the event of arrest, the

Petitioner may be subjected to humiliation and prolonged

detention. Hence, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be

granted.

8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations disclose

serious offences involving assault and criminal intimidation

along with circulation of objectionable content on social

media.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the

parties, the nature of allegations, the background of the

dispute and the materials placed on record, this Court is of

the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not

necessary at this stage. The petitioner is entitled to the

protection of anticipatory bail.

10. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of

the Petitioner in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on

bail on such terms and conditions as the Arresting Officer

deems just and proper, subject to the following conditions:

i. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the

investigation and appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when required;

ii. The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly

induce, threaten or promise any witness

acquainted with the facts of the case;

iii. The Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction

without prior permission of the Court

concerned;