JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. - In this case, on the information lodged by his former wife Baisakhi Mohanty, the petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 506 of the I.P.C. read with Sectin 25 and 27 of the Arms Act in C.T. Case No. 3203 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, arising out of Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case No. 251(32) of 2015. 2.The offences under Section 506 of the I.P.C. and also Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, are not punishable with imprisonment for terms exceeding seven years. 3.This Anticipatory Bail Application was heard along with Anticipatory Bail application No. 10662 of 2015. In this case, the informant has alleged that the petitioner was threatening her over phone calls from private numbers and chasing on a regular basis by Car, as a result of which , her Car got damaged recently before 7 to 8 days of lodging of the F.I.R. It is stated that since 18th January, 2012, divorce between the informant and the petitioner was made and since then the petitioner is harassing the informant physically and mentally. The informant further alleged that he possesses a Revolver and showing that he is threatening to kill her. So she apprehended danger to her life as he is trying to kill her by chasing her car with speed on public road. 4.This application was heard along with ABLAPL No. 10662 of 2015. After a careful discussion, the application filed by the petitioner is allowed. The reasons given therein be read as a part of this order. Keeping in view the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another; (2014) 58 OCR (SC) 999; Siddharam Satilingappa Mhetre Vrs State of Maharashtra and others; (2011) 48 OCR (SC)-1 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vrs. State of Punjab; (1980) 2 SCC 565 ; the application is allowed by a separate order passed today. 5.Keeping in view the discussion made in the other Bail Application, this Court comes to the conclusion that though the nature of serious because of the number of cases filed against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the offence is of exceptional grave. 5.Keeping in view the discussion made in the other Bail Application, this Court comes to the conclusion that though the nature of serious because of the number of cases filed against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the offence is of exceptional grave. Moreover, this Court has also discussed in the connected bail application that the petitioner met the relevant consideration required for granting anticipatory bail or for not arresting him for the offences allegedly committed by him as the maximum punishment do not exceed imprisonment for terms exceeding five years. 6.So, keeping in view the aforesaid consideration and discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed. It is directed that on the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the Arresting Officer. However, it is further stipulated that the petitioner shall not harass any of the two informants in any way and if he does so in future, it is open for the informants to file application for cancellation of bail granted to him. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. ABLAPL allowed.