Disposed¶20

Muktinarayan Rath v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Feb 2025ABLAPL/1471/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail; ABLAPL; High Court of Orissa; apprehension of arrest; F.I.R. by wife; Section 85 BNS; Arnesh Kumar vrs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273; Satender Kumar Antil vrs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; arrest guidelines; liberty to renew prayer; V. Narasingh, J.; 11.02.2025

What did the court decide?

No anticipatory bail was granted; the ABLAPL was disposed of on the footing that any arrest would be governed by the Arnesh Kumar/Satender Kumar Antil guidelines, with liberty reserved to the Petitioners to renew their prayer if threatened with an F.I.R. under a provision punishable with more than seven years. ¶20

Muktinarayan Rath Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners, who apprehend being taken into custody upon institution of an F.I.R. likely to be lodged by the wife of Petitioner No.1 (and daughter-in-law of Petitioners 2 and 3), should be granted protection/anticipatory bail, the anticipated F.I.R. falling under Section 85 of the BNS punishable with three years' imprisonment.

¶15

Court's answer

This Court has no iota of doubt that, even if the F.I.R. is instituted, the matter would fall under Section 85 of the BNS, which provides for imprisonment of three years.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

In the event of institution of the F.I.R., the Police officials shall scrupulously follow the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vrs. State of Bihar & another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, as reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶19

Key takeaways

In the event of any perceptible threat of an F.I.R. being instituted under any other provision entailing punishment of more than seven years, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to renew their prayer.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (V. Narasingh, J.), Order dated 11.02.2025 in ABLAPL No.1471 of 2025 — Anticipatory bail application by Muktinarayana Rath, Laxminarayan Rath and Sukanti Mishra, apprehending arrest upon an F.I.R. likely to be instituted by the wife of Petitioner No.1 (daughter-in-law of Petitioners 2 and 3), disposed of without any bail direction. Held that even if the F.I.R. is instituted, the offence would fall under Section 85 of the BNS (punishable with three years' imprisonment) and the Police shall scrupulously follow the Arnesh Kumar vrs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines, as reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil vrs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51. Liberty granted to renew the prayer if threatened with an F.I.R. under a provision entailing punishment of more than seven years.

Muktinarayan Rath v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muktinarayan Rath v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Behera Vs State of Odisha

Rohit Kumar Samal Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha

Arun Jena Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Samal Vs State of Odisha

Manoranjan Mohapatra @ Manaranjan Vs State of Odisha