Bishnu Behera @ Bishnupriya Behera Vs State of Odisha

3. The Petitioner, apprehending her arrest in connection with Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.133 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1374 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Puri for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 294/307/354/506/34 of the I.P.C., has filed this petition for release on pre-arrest bail.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally SignedSigned by: SIPUN BEHERADesignation: Senior StenographerReason: AuthenticationLocation: HIGH COURT OFORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 23-Apr-2026 11:28:36

¶20

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a written report before the IIC of Kumbharpada Police Station stating that one Kalia Behera of Khakimathanuasahi had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from her about two years earlier. On 22.04.2024, when the

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

complainant and her husband approached him for repayment, the accused did not return the money. It was further alleged that the petitioner and her husband, along with the house owner, abused them in obscene language and assaulted them and that Kalia Behera assaulted her husband with an intention to kill them. Hence, this case.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations made in the FIR are false and the FIR has been lodged solely due to business rivalry between the Petitioner and the informant. No such incident occurred on the alleged date and no injury was sustained by the injured person. In the meantime, the investigation has substantially progressed in this case and there is not even an iota of evidence to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC.

¶24

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that during the investigation of the case, so far, no incriminating material has been seized, nor has any of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case. There is no injury whatsoever sustained by the informant. The petitioner is an innocent person and is in no way connected to the alleged crime. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Puri Town and therefore, there is no chance of her absconding.

¶25

7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for prearrest bail.

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the background of the dispute between the parties, the materials placed on record, the stage of investigation and the fact that the allegation under Section 307 IPC is prima facie not supported by any medical or other cogent evidence at this stage, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner does not appear to be necessary.

¶28

9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶29

10. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Arresting Officer deems just and proper, subject to the following conditions:

¶30