The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.350 of 2023 Sankar Parida … Petitioner Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Counsel along with Mr. S.K. Jena, Advocate State of Odisha … Opposite Party -versus- Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, ASC Mr. J. Sahoo, Adv.(Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 21.08.2023 Order No. 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Khallikote P.S. Case No.466 of 2022 arising out of G.R. Case No.1164 of 2022 corresponding to S.T. Case No.59 of 2022 pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khallikote, being charge- sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/406 of IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act, on the main allegation of committing dowry death and abetment of suicide of his wife for demand of dowry and subjecting her to torture and cruelty prior to her death. 3. In the course of hearing of bail application,
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the Page 1 of 5 petitioner by placing the relevant portion of charge- sheet, submits that there is absolutely no case made out against the petitioner either for the offence under Section 302 or 304-B of IPC and he further submits that the ingredients of offence Section 306 of the IPC are also not attracted against the Petitioner in this case. It is accordingly, submitted that the petitioner having detained in custody for just one year may kindly be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, learned ASC, however, seriously opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter alia that the statements of the witnesses clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner for commission of offences under Section 304-B/306 of IPC and the petitioner being the husband of the deceased should not be granted bail. 5. Mr. J. Sahoo, learned counsel for the informant, however, by filing the certified copy of order passed on 20.04.2023 by the learned JMFC, Khallikote in 1.C.C. No.04 of 2023, submits that after the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence in G.R. Case No.1164 of 2022, it again took cognizance of offence in the complaint instituted by the mother- in-law of the petitioner by adding Section 302 of IPC. Learned counsel for the Informant by placing the observation of the Doctor in the Post Mortem Report submits that it is a clear case of murder and the Page 2 of 5 petitioner being the husband was primarily responsible for death of his wife and the petitioner, therefore, should not be granted bail. 6. It is never disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote, Ganjam has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/406 of IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act by an order passed on 18.10.2022 in G.R. Case No.1164 of 2022 and the said J.M.F.C. has again taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498-A/302/304-B/406/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act by a subsequent order passed on 20.04.2023 in 1.C.C. No.04 of 2023 and directed to tag the complaint and G.R. Case together under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. 7. This Court without making any observation, just reminds that the same Court cannot take cognizance twice in the same case, unless the superior Court set aside the order taking cognizance and direct it to apply its mind to pass fresh order on cognizance and thereby, two cognizance orders cannot be passed in one case, especially when there is provision for adding or subtracting an offence and the best stage to add and subtract an offence is at the time of considering charge against the accused in a case. 8. In the above background of principle and after having considered the rival submissions and taking Page 3 of 5 into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the petitioner and keeping in view the mode and manner of commission of crime and on going through the facts as pointed out in the charge-sheet and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety including the pre trial detention of the petitioner since 23.08.2022, this Court admits the petitioner to bail. 9. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail, (ii) the petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with, (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case and (iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six(06) months from the actual date of release from the custody. Page 4 of 5 The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated. It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for grave and serious offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. Any of the observation made in this order should not be read/taken into consideration by the Courts while considering the case on merit inasmuch as the discussion made above is purely for disposal of this bail application. 10.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Aug-2023 18:42:23 Page 5 of 5