The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.1703 of 2024 (An application under Setion-439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Suresh Parida ..... Petitioner -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
contended that there exists a strong prima facie case against the Petitioner, based on credible materials collected during investigation a charge sheet was filed implicating the Petitioner as an accused. Moreover, the court below has also taken cognizance of the offences under the alleged sections. He further submitted that considering the allegation made in the F.I.R. and keeping in view the nature of the crime which is of heinous nature the Petitioner is not entitled to bail. Therefore, it was submitted that no leniency should be shown to the accused Petitioner in the present case. 8. On perusal of the case diary, this Court observes that apart from the confessional statement of the co-accused Raya Munda, Champai Munda, the statement of the witnesses Sumitra Panda and Pratap Chandra Sethi, the statement of the accused Petitioner recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act BLAPL No.1703 of 2004 Page 5 of 6. reveals about the incident that had taken place on the date of occurrence and the same clearly indicates the involvement of the present Petitioner in the alleged crime. Additionally, on perusal of the post mortem report, it appears that the same is inconclusive with regard to the cause of death, awaiting the final report from the forensic laboratory. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the materials on record, further keeping in view the fact that the final cause of death has not been decided yet, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail at this juncture. However, liberty is given to the Petitioner to move a fresh bail application after determination of the final cause of death and after examination of the witnesses named hereinabove. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the BLAPL stands
Arguments
… Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Bini Mishra, Advocate For Opposite Party … Mr. Debasish Nayak, Additional Government Advocate. ---------------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Date of hearing : 19.07.2024 : Date of order : 23.08.2024 A.K. Mohapatra, J. The above noted bail application has been field under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the rejection of the prayer for bail of the Petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Bail Application No.30 of 2024 vide order dated 30.01.2024. BLAPL No.1703 of 2004 Page 1 of 6. 2. The above noted bail application arises out of G.R. Case No.995 of 2023, corresponds to Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.343 of 2024, which was registered for alleged commission of offences under Section 498-A/494/304(A)/302/120(B) of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that one Kunari Ghana lodged a written report on 20th September, 2023 before the I.I.C., Keonjhar Town Police Station, which was registered as Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.343 of 2023 for alleged commission of offences as has been narrated hereinabove. As per the prosecution allegation, the daughter of the Informant had been married to the present Petitioner for the last five years. The Petitioner along with his family members had been demanding more dowry from the deceased and her parents. On 03.09.2023, the Petitioner along with his family has allegedly committed murder of the daughter of the Informant and lodged a false missing report before the local police. 4. Upon registration of such F.I.R., the I.O. took up the investigation and in course of his investigation arrested the BLAPL No.1703 of 2004 Page 2 of 6. present Petitioner on 24.09.2023. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the date of his arrest the Petitioner is languishing in jail custody. Although the Petitioner had applied for bail before the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjahr, the same was rejected. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar for bail. However, such bail application has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar vide his order dated 30.01.2024. 5. Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that there is nothing on record and there is no evidence to establish the involvement of the present Petitioner in the alleged crime. He further contended that the present Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on suspicion and on the basis of the fact that the deceased happens to be the wife of the present Petitioner. Further, referring to the plight of the Petitioner, it was submitted that the Petitioner has already undergone enough incarceration and that he should be enlarged on bail on any conditions as would be deemed just and proper BLAPL No.1703 of 2004 Page 3 of 6. by this Court and the Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by such conditions. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that in the meantime the investigation has been concluded and the final charge sheet has been submitted. He further submitted that even accepting allegations of the prosecution to be true, the basic ingredients required to constitute an offence under the alleged sections are lacking against the present Petitioner. Therefore, it was contended that the Petitioner be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail. He further contended that on the basis of the materials collected by the I.O. in course of investigation, a case is well made out against the present petitioner under the alleged sections of the I.P.C. He further submitted that the Petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. lodged by the Informant. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State submitted that the body of the deceased was recovered from river Baitarini. He BLAPL No.1703 of 2004 Page 4 of 6. further contended that the F.I.R. clearly reveals that the allegation with regard to constant dowry demand and the consequential torture meted out by the Petitioner and his family members on the deceased prior to her death. He further
Decision
disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 23-Aug-2024 19:44:34 Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 23rd August, 2024/Debasis Aech, Secretary BLAPL No.1703 of 2004 Page 6 of 6.