ABLAPL/483/2026 of LAXMI PRIYA BISWAL Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 27 August 2026

ORDER

27.08.2026

06. 1. Mr. S. Palit, learned senior counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the Petitioners by filing Vaklatanama in Court. The same is taken on record. The name of Mr. Palit, learned counsel be reflected in the file, cause list as well as CMS of this Court.

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Palit, for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Panigrahi, ASC as well as the Informant, Mr. Nayak.

3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. CaseNo.1129 of 2024 pending on the file of learned JMFC-IV, Cuttack, arising out of Madhupatna P.S. Case No.283 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable under sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 314, 3(5), 316(2), 351(1) of BNS, 2023.

4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners that, in essence, the contractual agreement between the parties has been given the colour of criminality and in the process strong arm tactic is being used to compel the Petitioners to pay the money.

5. Referring to the deed of partnership which is taken on record, it is borne out that the Petitioner No.1 is the “Party of the First Part” of the said agreement and Informant is the “Party of the Second Part” and the agreement relates to running of IMFL OFF SHOP and the tenure of the agreement is co-terminus with the license which is borne out from para-3 of the said agreement, which is culled out hereunder:

“xxx xxx xxx

3. Both the partner have agreed to registered the Partnership deed before the Sub-Register Bhubaneswar and said partnership deed will be valid till cancellation of the mentioned license vide License No.85 on dated 16.04.2021.

xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasized)

5A. Attention of this Court is also drawn to clause-12 of the said agreement, which deals with the day to day conduct of the business and clause-9 deals with dispute redressal mechanism. The same are quoted hereunder:

“xxx xxx xxx

ix. Any dispute or difference arising between the parties hereto in relation to the affairs of the Partnership Firm or in regard to construction of any clause hereof in relation to the rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereto shall be referred to the arbitration of Sri Debasis Panda, Advocate residing at Plot No- 132, V.I.P Area, Nayapili, Bhubaneswar - 751015 who shall enter upon the reference and decide the matter and award given by such arbitration shall be final and binding on the parties hereto subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 & in failure it will be decided before the Civil Court under Bhubaneswar Jurisdiction.

X. xxx

Xi. xxx

xxx xxx xxx”

6. Referring to the above, learned senior counsel submits that the F.I.R in the case at hand was rightly not instituted in the first instance.

The Informant’s filing of CRLMP fortifies the apprehension of incarceration on account of the patent overzealousness of the informant.

7. Learned counsel for the Informant, Mr. Nayak, submits that from the very inception the Petitioners were never intended to honour the agreement and in fact relies on the affidavit(s) which are on record, indicating that the number of times the Petitioners have undertaken to settle the matter even in the police station, which has been reflected in the orders passed by this Court for which. This Court even referred the matter to mediation.

But unfortunately, the mediation became unsuccessful because of the conduct of the Petitioners. Because of conduct of the petitioner the plea of contractual disputes does not merit consideration.

8. Learned counsel for the State refers to the statement of the informant, indicating, inter alia, a sum of Rs.9,45,000/- was received from Petitioners.

9. But at the same time, he echoed the submission of the learned counsel for the Informant that, in spite of the several undertakings before the Investigating Agency, the Petitioners have gone back on their promise.

10. Both the learned counsel for the Informant as well as the learned counsel for the State oppose the prayer for pre-arrest bail in view of the conduct of the Petitioners.

11. Considering the rival submissions, in the light of the recitals of the agreement adverted to hereinabove and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, relating to the approach of Courts in case of pre-arrest bail, this Court are persuaded to hold that Petitioners are entitled to the protection of pre-arrest bail.

Hence, the ABLAPL is allowed.

12. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case, they shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions deemed just and proper with further conditions that they will cooperate with the investigation.

13. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge

Soumya Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Aug-2026 18:49:29 Signature Not Verified