Orissa High Court
ABLAPL/149/2025 of BHRAMAR NAIK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 25 August 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 149 of 2025 CNR No. ODHC010004712025 1. Bhramar Naik 2. Abhaya Naik 3. Smt. Parbati Naik …. Petitioners Mr. K. Gaya, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha 2. Sidheswar Naik …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC ABLAPL No. 2189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 149 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010004712025
1. Bhramar Naik
2. Abhaya Naik
3. Smt. Parbati Naik
….
Petitioners
Mr. K. Gaya, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. Sidheswar Naik
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
ABLAPL No. 2189 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010126892025
Kusha Naik
….
Petitioner
Mr. K. Gaya, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. Sidheswar Naik
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
25.08.2026
03. 1. Since both the ABLAPLs relate to the same FIR, they are heard together on the consent of the parties and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.468 of 2024 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C., Narsinghapur, arising out of Judum P.S Case No.159 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 85/103/80/3(5) of BNS read with Section 4 of D.P. Act.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioners in ABLAPL No.149 of 2025 are the in-laws and the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.2189 of 2025 is the husband.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that because of their relationship with the deceased, the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case at hand. Hence, they may be protected by pre-arrest bail.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand referring to the materials on record submits that there are allegations against the in-laws. Hence, the Petitioners ought not to be protected by pre-arrest bail during the currency of investigation.
7. Admittedly, initially the husband was not cited as an accused.
8. This Court perused the materials on record of independent witnesses which prima facie indicate that the deceased had locked the door from inside and the post mortem report regarding the cause of death reads as under:- “Asphyxia death due to hanging from height above the ground by a ligature constricting vital air ways resulting Cardio-respiratory failure. Suicidal in nature.”
9. Considering the nature of allegations and the punishment prescribed, it is directed that on surrendering within three weeks hence and moving for bail, the Petitioners shall be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on such terms as deemed just and proper.
10. It is needless to state that the Petitioners shall cooperate with the ongoing investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when summoned.
11. Liberty is granted to the prosecution to seek variance of this order, if there is any violation.
12. Accordingly, the ABLAPLs stand disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge Ayesha Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Aug-2026 11:35:38 Signature Not Verified