[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sangita Mandal@ Sardar & vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 31 March, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.1333 of 2026
Sangita Mandal@ Sardar & .... Petitioners
another
Ms. R.Singh, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.Panda, ASC
And
ABLAPL No.1373 of 2026
Anjali Mandal & another .... Petitioners
Mr. M.Nandy, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.Panda, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 31.03.2026
No.
01. 1. Both the ABLAPLs are taken up together for orders.
2. Instant petitions have been filed under Section 482
BNSS by the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection
with Kalimela P.S.Case No. 17 of 2026 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.44 of 2026 pending in the file of learned JMFC at
Motu, MV-79, Malkangiri on the grounds stated.
3. Perused the F.I.R. as at Annexure-1. The bail plea vis-à-
vis petitioner No.2 in ABLAPL No. 1373 of 2026 is not
pressed. Recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties. Upon a reading of the F.I.R. i.e. Annexure-1,
it is made to appear that there is allegation of ill-treatment
with the informant's daughter by her in-laws and also husband,
who is stated to be in judicial custody at present. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits the allegations in the F.I.R.
are totally false. Mr. Nandy, learned counsel for the petitioners
in ABLAPL No. 1373 of 2026 submits that the allegation of
sexual mischief committed by petitioner No.2 is highly
improbable. As regards the other accused, namely, Anjali
Mandal, the submission of Mr. Nandy, learned counsel is that
the allegation is against her and others is omnibus in nature.
The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners are that
considering the nature of allegations, the petitioners should be
allowed to go on bail with any conditions. Ms.Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners in ABLAPL No. 1333 of 2026
submits that the accused persons, namely, petitioner No.1 is the
sister in-law and petitioner No.2 is husband of petitioner No.1
and the allegation against them is similar in nature.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the
State submits that the informant's daughter has been alleged of
ill-treatment and was treated as an indoor patient but all injuries
sustained by her are simple in nature and while claiming so, he
submitted the case diary and bed head ticket collected from the
hospital. It is revealed that the victim was admitted in the
hospital on 23rd January, 2026 and received treatment for
injuries. In fact, the case diary reveals that the informant and
also her daughter received injuries but the injuries as earlier
stated are not grievous. In so far as the allegation of dowry
demand is concerned, it is not specifically mentioned in the
F.I.R. as to nature of such demand whether it is in cash or kind.
The Court finds that there has been allegation of such demand
by the in-laws without revealing details of the same.
5. Mr. Panda, learned ASC does not have any instruction
as to if the investigation is over. Perused the statement of the
informant recorded under Section 180 BNSS and it is claimed
by her that the victim was ill-treated by her in-laws and there
has been sexual mischief committed by father in-law in the
manner described therein. Considering the above facts and
submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties, in
absence of any specific mention regarding the nature of
demand from the side of the in-laws but alleging ill-treatment
and admittedly the victim received injuries and that she and the
informant received such injuries during the incident, under the
impression that the investigation must have been over by now,
this Court is of the view that even though there is no case made
out for pre-arrest bail but the petitioners except the father in-
law, namely, petitioner No.2 in ABLAPL No. 1373 of 2026 as
against whom the bail plea is not pressed are directed to
surrender before the learned court below for being released
with stringent conditions.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the ABLAPLs are disposed of with the
direction as aforesaid. In the event, the petitioners (except the
petitioner No.2 in ABLAPL No.1373 of 2026) surrender before
the court of learned JMFC at Motu, MV-79, Malkangiri within
a fortnight from today and to go on bail, it is directed that they
shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.
30,000/-(rupees thirty thousand) each with one solvent surety
for the like amount each with other conditions besides the
following such as, they shall not committed any further
mischief involving the victim and her family and cause any
harm to her in any manner whatsoever, while on bail and to co-
operate the I.O. and to attend the P.S. as and when summoned
without default, if the same is pending as on date. But in so far
as petitioner No.2 in ABLAPL No.1373 of 2026 is concerned,
his bail plea stands rejected but he is at liberty to surrender
before the learned court below within the above stipulated
period seeking regular bail during the first hour and in the event
of rejection, to approach the learned Sessions Court for orders
on the same day during second hours itself.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Kabita
