IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.11841 of 2025 Trieveni @ Triveni Sahu …. Petitioner Ms. S. Jena, Advocate -versus-

1. State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties

2. Sangita Nayak Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate (Informant)

ABLAPL No.12149 of 2025 Saraswati Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. A. Das, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA ABLAPL No.13766 of 2025 Udayanath Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA ABLAPL No.13770 of 2025 Jhilli Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

10.12.2025 Order No.

02. 1. Since all the matters arise out of same F.I.R, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order on the consent of the parties.

2. Heard learned counsels for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant appearing in ABLAPL No.11841 of

2025.

3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.529 of 2025 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi arising out of Paralakhemundi P.S. Case No.254 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4)/ 316(2)/ 126(2)/ 296/ 324(2)/ 115(2)/

351(2)/ 3(5) of BNS.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in ABLAPL No.11841 of 2025, 12149 of 2025, 13766 of 2025 and 13770 of 2025 that the allegations are omnibus in nature and there are no material to fortify the same and the cause of action admittedly arose almost 7 years back and there is no explanation for the delay. Hence, the Petitioners may be protected by pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State in all the cases and learned counsel for the Informant appearing in ABLAPL No.11841 of 2025, referring to the recitals in the Case Diary submit that there is material to indicate that on several dates the amounts were taken which in total amounts to Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs) and since from the inception the Petitioners had mens rea to not return the amount, they should not be protected by pre-

arrest bail.

6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the co-accused Milli @ Mita Tank and Durga Panda have been taken into custody and referring to the same and complicity of the present Petitioners, it is submitted with vehemence by both the learned counsel for the State as well as the Informant that the present Petitioners, who are similarly placed, ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail.

7. It is trite that there is no thumb rule that because the co-accused have been taken into custody, the other co-accused have to suffer the same fate. The allegations qua the Petitioners have to be considered independently.

8. It is also submitted that except the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.13770 of 2025 (Jhilli Sahu), who is cited to be an accused in Paralekhamundi P.S. Cases No.19 of 2021 and 65 of 2025 apart from the case at hand, none of the other Petitioners have any criminal antecedents.

9. It is further submitted by the learned counsels for the Petitioners that since charge sheet has already been filed, custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not warranted.

10. On considering the rival submissions and the allegations as put forth as well as the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail in respect of the Petitioner in ABLAPL No. 13770 of 2025 (Jhilli Sahu). However, it is directed that the Petitioner in ABLAPL No. 13770 of 2025 (Jhilli Sahu) may surrender before the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi in connection with the aforementioned case within one month from today.

In the event of her surrender and motion for bail, the same be considered by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi on merits, in the first hour of the day.

In the event of rejection of the prayer for bail by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi, the Petitioner in ABLAPL No. 1377