ABLAPL/10081/2025 of BINODINI PANDA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 20 August 2026

Order

No.

ORDER

20.08.2026

05.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.911 of 2025 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C.-III, Bhubaneswar, arising out of Nayapalli P.S. Case No.429 of 2025 for commission of offence 420 of the IPC.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prosecution case is that the Petitioner induced the Informant to part with a sum of Rs.34,20,400/- and thereafter did not pay the same.

4. It is urged by him that since it is a money claim the FIR ought not to have been instituted in the first place and the Petitioner being a lady, leniency be shown to grant her pre-arrest bail.

5. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State as well as Informant.

6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Informant had paid a sum of Rs.2,88,200/-.

It is also borne out from the case diary that the present Petitioner is cited as an accused in the following cases: “i. Capital P.S. Case No.80/2020 u/ss. 294/323/341/354/354-B/427/506/34 of the IPC; ii. Capital P.S. Case No.241/2021 u/ss. 323/8379/406/420/34 of the IPC; iii. Khandagri P.S. Case No.98/2022 u/ss.294/406/506 of the IPC; iv. Airport P.S. Case No.164/2020 u/ss.294/506/34 of the IPC; and v. AirPort P.S. Case No.132/2022 u/ss.294/323/341/506 of the IPC.”

7. So far as the antecedents are concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said antecedent relate to her husband’s business and that ought not to weigh this Court in considering the application for pre-arrest bail, in the case at hand.

8. Though the antecedents cannot be the sole ground to judge the merit of an application for pre- arrest bail, but the same also cannot be completely brushed aside in considering as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to the “exceptional remedy” for pre-arrest bail.

10. Considering the rival submission, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application of the Petitioner for pre-arrest bail. However, it is directed that she may surrender before the learned J.M.F.C.- III, Bhubaneswar in connection with the aforementioned case within one month from today.

11. In the event of her surrender and motion for bail, the same be considered by the learned J.M.F.C.- III, Bhubaneswar on merits, in the first hour of the day.

12. In the event of rejection of the prayer for bail by the learned J.M.F.C.-III, Bhubaneswar the Petitioner is at liberty to move the higher forum for bail in the second hour on the same day.

13. On being so moved, the higher forum is requested to make an endeavor to dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day.

14. The case diary be made available to the concerned courts to facilitate disposal of the bail application of the Petitioner and learned J.M.F.C.-III, Bhubaneswar is called upon to transmit the case record to the higher forum at the earliest in the event of rejection of such bail application. The question of parity, if so urged, shall be taken into account.

15. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge Basu Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 21-Aug-2026 19:25:12 Signature Not Verified