MADHU SUDAN RAY vs STATE OF ODISHA — ABLAPL/6690/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 19th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010312722026

Filing Number

ABLAPL/12370/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

ABLAPL/6690/2026

Registration Date

09-Jun-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Coram

Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS ( 9 )

Sub-Category

Anticipatory Bail Applications ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

19-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MADHU SUDAN RAY

    Adv. BYOMAKESH TRIPATHY,S.RATH, A.PATTANAIK, B.SWAIN, R.PATRA, D.K.BIDHAR,S.RATH, A.PATTANAIK, B.SWAIN, R.PATRA, D.K.BIDHAR, S.RATH, A.PATTANAIK, B.SWAIN, R.PATRA, D.K.BIDHAR

  2. 2.HIMANSU BALLA PATTANAIK

  3. 3.MONALISHA RAY

  4. 4.SANDESH KUMAR DAS

  5. 5.DEEPAK KUMAR RAY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF ODISHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar MohapatraView PDF

    The Orissa High Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners Madhu Sudan Ray and others under Section 482 B.N.S.S., finding no current apprehension of arrest since no F.I.R. had been registered. The court directed that any arresting officer must first explore applying the principles of Section 35(3), (4), (5) of B.N.S.S. before arresting the petitioners, in line with the Arnesh Kumar precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    For Orders - Fresh Bail Applications U/S 438 Cr.P.C./482 Bnss

    Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ABLAPL/6690/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Orissa High Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners Madhu Sudan Ray and others under Section 482 B.N.S.S., finding no current apprehension of arrest since no F.I.R. had been registered. The court directed that any arresting officer must first explore applying the principles of Section 35(3), (4), (5) of B.N.S.S. before arresting the petitioners, in line with the Arnesh Kumar precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case