Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case under BNS provisions pending before the J.M.F.C., Cuttack. During hearing, counsel noted the police had resorted to Section 35(3) BNSS (notice instead of arrest). As there was no perceptible threat of arrest, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 5784 of 2025
Jatindra Lenka @ Mantu
…. Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Behera, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B. Pasayat, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha
…. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER
Order No.
08.08.2025
03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Page 1 of 2
resorted to the provisions contained in Section 35(3) of the BNSS.
(V. NARASINGH) Judge
Santoshi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Aug-2025 18:30:41
Page 2 of 2
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jatindra Lenka @ Mantu
State of Odisha
V. Narasingh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
