JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. In this case, the petitioner is facing investigation for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 323,294, 417 and 506 of the I.P.C. read with Section 25 of the Arms Act in C.T. Case No. 3097 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar arising out of Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No. 193 of 2015. It is apparent from the records that four cases are pending against the petitioner. First case has been initiated by one Baisakhi Mohanty, who happens to be the first wife of the present petitioner. In that case, the present petitioner was facing investigation for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1571 of 2012 further proceeding of G.R. Case No. 593 of 2011 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar has been stayed on an application filed by the petitioner to quash the charge-sheet as well as the order taking cognizance by the learned S.D.J.M, Bhubaneswar and issuing processes against the present petitioner.

2. It is also apparent from the records that as per the judgment dated 18.01.2012, the Judge Family Court, Bhubaneswar has already dissolved the marriage by awarding a decree of divorce in favour of Baisakhi Mohanty and the marriage has been dissolved. After dissolution bf the marriage, the present petitioner allegedly married Rajalaxmi Das who is the informant in this case. In her F.I.R. Rajalaxmi Das has given a detailed description how she became acquainted with the petitioner and thereafter intimacy developed between them, which led to solemnization of their marriage. It is alleged that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts of his earlier marriage before the informant, but subsequently she came to know from his laptop, after their marriage and in the meantime, she became pregnant. It is alleged by the informant that the petitioner has manipulated the medical records to show that the uterus of the informant as bicornuate and induced her to cause abortion, but it is stated by her that on re-examination by different radiologists she came to know that no such deformity was found. So there was no abortion of the pregnancy. She has also described that she was thrashed by the petitioner in a drunken state. In the meantime, she has been staying in her matrimonial home, but as harassment continues, she came back to her maternal house and continued to stay there. On the basis of the facts available on record, it is apparent that an offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is made out. The offences under Sections 323, 294 and 417 of the I.P.C. are bailable in nature and offence under Section 506 of the I.P.C. is also made out. There is also allegation about possession of the Fire Arm by the petitioner, but it came to light in course of hearing that he has a licensed fire arm. So the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is not made out against the petitioner.

3. It is further noted that the fact that the petitioner has been entangled by his first wife in a case under Section 506 of the I.P.C: read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act in C.T. Case No. 3203 of 2015 the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, arising out of Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case No. 251 (32) of 2015 in that case also ABLAPL No. 11505 of 2015 has been filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court, which is being disposed of as per the separate order being passed today in the meantime, first wife has also registered P.S. Case No. 353 of 2015 at Chandrasekharpur PS. for alleged commission of offences under Sections 465 and 471 of the I.P.C. by the petitioner and an anticipatory bail was moved in that case also. As such offences were bailable in nature, the Bail Application was not pressed and was allowed to be withdrawn.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in course of argument submitted that all the offences alleged are not serious in nature and since the petitio