The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 05. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.702 of 2024 Prabhu Charan Swain ..... State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Parsuram Das Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – P.C.Das, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 09.04.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with G.R. Case No.322 of 2023, arising out of Niali P.S. Case No.345 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Niali for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 4. That, the prosecution allegation as revealed from the FIR in brief is that on 09.10.2023 at about 9.40 PM the informant got a telephonic call from a person about the death of his sister, namely Binapani Swain (48) and rushed to the village Sithalo and saw the dead body of his sister was lying on the Varhandah of the accused person’s house. The informant came to know that the accused had sold a goat only for Page 1 of 4. Rs.5,000/- without knowledge of his sister (deceased), while his sister had negotiated to sell such goat for Rs.8,000/-. The informant suspected that due to severe quarrel between them, the accused person has committed murder of his sister by strangling her. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2023. He further contended that in the meantime the investigation has been concluded and the charge sheet has been filed on 07.02.2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after conclusion of the investigation, the final charge sheet has been filed under Section 304 of I.P.C. instead of the initial allegation of commission of an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. therefore, the charge under section 302 IPC cannot be said to form a part of the final charge sheet. He further contended that in the meantime the case has been committed to the sessions for trial and the same has been renumbered as S.T. No.36 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. 6. It was further contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner and the deceased were married nearly 30 years ago and they have been blessed with two girl child, one of whom has passed away in the meantime and the other one is married and residing in Chennai. On the date of occurrence the Petitioner and deceased had been in a fight with regard the sale of a goat. Thereafter, the Petitioner left the house and joined on a padayatra and after returning the Petitioner found the deceased lying dead in his house. Thereafter, the present case has been registered implicating the present petitioner as an accused in the said case on the suspicion of the death of the Petitioner’s deceased-wife. Upon medical examination of the deceased, the Medical Officer has opined that the cause of death is due to Cerebro Vascular Accident (Brain Stroke) which is a natural disease and the same is ante- Page 2 of 4. mortal in nature. Additionally, It was found that there are no grave external injures present on the body of the deceased. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the 161 Cr.P.C statement of one Menaka Mohanty, who happens to be the sister-in-law of the deceased. In her statement, the above named witness has clearly stated that the Petitioner and his wife (now deceased) used to get into fights while they were staying together. She has further stated that the deceased used to come to the house of the above named witness and narrate the entire incident of assault by her husband. She has also stated that the quarrel between them was with regard to the sale of goat. After the quarrel the petitioner went off to a padyatra, and upon returning, the Petitioner found that his wife is lying dead in his house. Thereafter, the husband of the above named witness went to the house of the Petitioner and found that the wife of the Petitioner is lying dead. In the statement, she has also stated that the deceased was suffering from High Blood Pressure. By referring to the aforesaid materials on record, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that prima facie it appears that the deceased died due to brain stroke and the Petitioner had no role to play in such event. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further contended that the Petitioner is a local resident and there is no chance to abscond from natural of justice. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the bail application of the Petitioner on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are very serious in nature. He further contended that although the trial has not yet commenced, there is sufficient material to implicate the present Petitioner in the alleged crime. However, learned A.S.C. did not dispute the post mortem report Page 3 of 4. as well as the opinion of the M.O. that the death is due to brain stroke. In course of his argument, learned A.S.C. expresses his apprehension that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail there is a possibility that he might abscond from justice and cause delay in the conclusion of trial. Therefore, on such ground, it was prayed that the bail application of Petitioner be rejected at this juncture. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, on examination of the case diary as well as post mortem report and the opinion of the medical Officer, further taking into consideration the period of custodial detention of the petitioner and the fact that charge sheet has already been filed, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on stringent conditions. 7. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. 8. It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Apr-2024 13:51:03