The court granted bail to a woman accused by invoking the first proviso of Section 480 of BNSS, considering her gender, the presence of a young child, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fundamental presumption of innocence.

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Lalbag PS Case No.106 of 2026 corresponding to GR Case No.268 of 2026 pending in the file of learned SDJM Sadar, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.326(g)/326(f)/329(5)/287/125 of BNS r/w Sections 3 /4/5 of Explosive Act and U/S.4 of PDPP Act , on the main allegation of throwing one bottle containing petrol with fire to the vehicles parked by the side of wall of the High Court of Orissa and in the process, causing damage to four vehicles.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bijayananda Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the materials on record are taken into consideration, no offence is made out against the petitioner since the petitioner is a psychiatric patient and what she has done is beyond her control at the time of incident. Mr. Das further submits that in the meantime, after completion of investigation, charge- sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner being a lady can be admitted to bail by resorting to first proviso appended to Section 480 of BNSS. Accordingly, Mr. Das prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

2.1. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with life and, thereby, it is not a simple matter and, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner should be dealt with sternly. Accordingly, Mr. Patra prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

2.2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Meher, learned counsel for the informant, however, submits that since four vehicles have been damaged due to the fire as allegedly caused by the petitioner, she should not be enlarged on bail, rather she should be directed to compensate the victims for the loss suffered by them. Accordingly, Mr. Meher prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

2.3. In echoing the submission of Mr. Meher, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, who is an advocate by profession and a victim in this case, appearing in person opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that release of the petitioner would encourage her to commit the offence again and again and it would not be proper to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, Ms. Agarwal prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for throwing bottle containing petrol with fire to the vehicles and causing damage to four vehicles by fire, but the petitioner herself is not only a lady, but also she is having a five years child, however, the child is remaining outside the jail as submitted. No doubt, there is serious objection and opposition to the bail application of the petitioner, but at the end, the petitioner herself being a lady is also entitled to the benefit of first proviso appended to Section 480 of BNSS. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against her and regard being had to the pre- trial detention of the petitioner in custody since 31.03.2026 with submission of charge-sheet in the meantime and there being no criminal antecedent of similar nature reported against the petitioner and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety including the principle of bail and the release of an ac