PARIKHITA SAHOO @ PARISITA SAHOO v. STATE OF ODISHA
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2026-01-20. PARIKHITA SAHOO @ PARISITA SAHOO v. STATE OF ODISHA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No. 370 of 2026 Parikhita Sahoo @ Parisita Sahoo …. Petitioners and others Mr. H. K. Panigrahi, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. M. K. Mohanty, ASC Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate for the informant CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK ORDER Order 20. 01. 2026 No. 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant petition under Section 482 BNSS is filed seeking pre-arrest bail of the petitioners in connection with G. R Case No. 05 of 2026 pending in the file of learned J. M. F. C, Aul nd arising out of Aul P. S. Case No. 0005 dated 2 January, 2026 on the grounds stated. 3. Gone through the FIR as at Annexue-1. Mr. Arjeet Mishra, learned counsel and his associates enters appearance for the informant and files the Vakalatnama today and the same is accepted and taken on record. Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and Medical Examination Report of the informant and the same are gone through.
As per the report, the victim received multiple injuries but all are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a general allegation of physical and mental torture meted out to the informant. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 BNSS are perused. The marriage between the informant and her husband had taken place in 2023 and both are blessed with a girl child. From the record, it reveals that the parties were living a happy married life till recently, whereafter the informant was subjected to ill treatment. There has been an allegation of dowry demand and ill-treatment to the informant for not fulfilling the same. However, the nature of demand with details has not been divulged by the informant in the FIR. Furthermore, the record reveals that the informant was assaulted and apparently by her husband. The injury report supports such claim of the informant.
Considering the materials on record and though the investigation is not yet over and recording the objection of the State and learned counsel for the informant, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, who are the in-laws of the informant though are not entitled to pre-arrest bail but should be directed to surrender before the learned court below for being released on bail with suitable conditions imposed. 4. Accordingly, it is ordered. 5. In the result, the ABLAPL is disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. In the event, the petitioners surrender before the court of learned J. M. F. C, Aul and they shall be released on bail in connection with G. R Case No. 05 of 2026 nd corresponding to Aul P. S. Case No. 0005 dated 2 January, 2026 upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like amount each with such other conditions imposed by the Court concerned as deemed just and proper and in the facts and circumstances of the case besides the following, such as, they shall not cause any injury and harm to the informant in any manner, whatsoever, after being released and to furnish an undertaking to that effect and also to attend the PS once in a fortnight preferably on Sunday between 10 AM and 1 PM and to report the I. O for the purpose of investigation, till the same is concluded. 6. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R. K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 22-Jan-2026 14:43:59
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.