Considering the grave allegations levelled against her, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh remarked–

“On a conspectus of the materials on record, at the cost of brevity, it has to be noted that the Petitioner is cited as an accused for inter-alia commission of the offence under Section 302 the IPC. And, the genesis of the alleged offence is stated to be the illicit relationship between the present Petitioner and the co-accused, the then DFO, whose pre-arrest bail application was rejected by this Court and affirmed by the Apex Court.”

The case revolved around the suspicious death of ACF Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra ('the deceased') on July 12, 2021 at his official residence in Paralakhemundi. As per the version of the wife of the deceased, he received fatal burn injuries while burning certain scrap items using kerosene.

However, father of the deceased smelled a foul play in the death of the deceased, who alleged that the wife of the deceased had extra-marital affair with the then DFO, Paralakhemundi. It was his further allegation that the wife, in collusion and conspiracy with the DFO and a cook, committed the murder of the deceased.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the CID, CB conducted investigation in the case and filed a charge-sheet against the three accused persons under Sections 285 and 304-A of the IPC. On the basis of such charge-sheet, the SDJM took cognizance under the aforesaid provisions against the wife of the deceased. However, the father of the deceased filed a 'protest petition' show-casing his dissatisfaction over investigation.

Upon consideration of materials, the SDJM treated the protest petition as 'complaint' and recorded initial statements of the informant-father and other witnesses. A prima facie case of murder and conspiracy was made out. Accordingly, cognizance was taken under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC against the three accused.

Though the wife of the deceased as well as the DFO filed separate petitions seeking to quash the order of cognizance, the same were earlier turned down by the High Court. The anticipatory bail pleas of the DFO and the cook were also turned down by the High Court last year.

The petitioner had filed an application under Section 205 CrPC, which deals with dispensing personal attendance of accused, before the SDJM, Paralakhemundi, which was rejected. Against such rejection order, the petitioner approached the High Court as well as the Supreme Court, but in vain. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Supreme Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail. Accordingly, she filed this pre-arrest bail plea.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no specific allegation has been credibly made against the petitioner. Further, he sought benefit similar to that provided under the proviso to Section 480(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for women accused, by contending that the provisions as to bail apply to anticipatory bail pleas.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the father of the deceased/informant and the State opposed the plea by submitting that circumstances against the petitioner have been clearly stated as the deceased was apprehending danger to his life at the instance of the petitioner and the then DFO since he came to learn about their illicit relationship.

It was further submitted that at the relevant time, when the deceased suffered 95% burn injuries, the petitioner was alone with him. It was highlighted that the SDJM has already taken cognizance under Section 302 IPC after examining the father of the deceased as well as other witnesses upon filing of the protest petition. Thus, the allegations against the petitioner are no more merely conjectures, rather a prima facie judicial satisfaction.

Taking into account such submissions and materials on record, Justice Narasingh observed–

“The order of cognizance under Section 302 of IPC having attained finality, in the backdrop of materials which have been brought on record, also in the light of the rejection of the pre-arrest bail of the co-accused, more particularly the then DFO, Sangram Keshari Behera, with whom the present Petitioner is stated to have connived in perpetrating the crime, this Court does not find any distinguishing features so as to enlarge the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail. Ubi eadem ratio, ibi idem jus-where the reason is same, the justice is same.”

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail was denied.

The petitioner, upon denial of pre-arrest relief, has reportedly surrendered before the Court of SDJM, Paralekhemundi on Monday (November 02).

Date of Order: October 31, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Satyabrata Panda, Addl. Standing Counsel; Mr. Rakesh Behera, Advocate for the Informant (Deceased's father)