The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1582 of 2024 1) Bikash Kumar Nayak @ Lalu Nayak 2) Chinmaya Nayak @ Kalia ..... Petitioners State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. – Mr. Amitav Tripathy Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. Debasis Nayak, A.G.A. Order No. 04.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 26.06.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate 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 Petitioners for grant of regular bail in connection with G.R. Case No.920 of 2023, arising out of Nuagaon P.S. Case No.186 of 2023, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., for alleged commission of offence Page 1 of 6. punishable under Sections 302/201/120-B/34 of the I.P.C. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. He further submitted that the Petitioners are in custody since 12.11.2023. He further submitted that in the meantime investigation has been concluded and final charge sheet has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that initially the case was registered under Sections 302/201/120- B/34 of the I.P.C., however, a preliminary charge sheet has been submitted for commission of offence under Sections 201/120-B/34/323/325/294/506/306 of the I.P.C. Further, referring to the statements of the witnesses, it is submitted that most of the witnesses who have been examined by the I.O., have stated that the victim had a love relationship with a boy which was objected to by her parents. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid relationship of the victim with the boy, the parents of the victim were not treating her properly and that she was being regularly scolded by her parents. 6. With regard to the involvement of the present Petitioners, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that they are related to the family of the accused persons. The only allegation against the Petitioners is that they have participated in the cremation of the deceased girl after she died under suspicious circumstances. He further emphatically argued that with regard to the allegation of assault causing death of the Page 2 of 6. deceased, the Petitioners had no role in the death of the deceased. The Petitioners were called upon by the parents of the girl for the cremation of here dead body, as a result of which, they participated in such cremation. 7. He further contended that the accused-Petitioners have one criminal antecedent involving a village dispute which eventually ended in a compromise between the parties. He further contended that the Petitioners belong to the locality, therefore, there is no chance of their absconding from justice. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that considering the limited extent of the involvement of the present Petitioners in the alleged crime and the fact that the Petitioners have their families to look after, the Petitioners be released on bail. He also submitted that the Petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the event the Petitioners are released on bail. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail. He further contended that with regard to the death of the deceased, the circumstances resulting in such death remain suspicious. It was further submitted that although the case was initially registered for commission of offence under Sections 302/201/120-B/34 of I.P.C., however, later a preliminary charge sheet has been submitted by modifying the offences and converting the case to one under Section 306 of I.P.C. In Page 3 of 6. the meantime, after receiving the Toxicology Report, a report has been prepared by the IIC, Nayagarh Police Station wherein he has stated that Toxicology Report received in respect of the deceased reveals that no poison was administered to the deceased prior to her death. Further, the said report received by the IIC also reveals that several external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. From the above development, the IIC came to a conclusion that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have caused neurogenic shock which can then cause cardiological problem leading to the death of the deceased. He further categorically observed in his report that after obtaining final opinion of the M.O., it is evident that there was injury on the body of the deceased and on perusal of the report and on detection of the fact that no poison was administered, the case has turned to one under Sections 323/325/294/506/201/120-B/306/34 of I.P.C. against the accused persons including the present Petitioners. 9. Report of the IIC further reveals that the Petitioners were not arrested as they were protected by an interim order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in ABLAPL No.14537 of 2023. The IIC further observed that the accused Patita Paban Pradhan is liable for offence under Sections 201/120-B/34 of the I.P.C., for conspiring and conniving with other accused persons for the disappearance of the dead body of the deceased. Page 4 of 6. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture submitted that the above named Patita Paban Pradhan has already been released on bail by the trial court. 11. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, this Court observes that there exists a suspicion with regard to the cause of death of the deceased in the present case. Although initially it was registered as a case under Section 302 of I.P.C., but subsequently apprehending the administration of poison, the case was registered under Section 306 of I.P.C., i.e. by converting the death to be one of homicidal in nature to suicidal in nature. In view of the Toxicology Report, this Court is of the view that there was no poison administered to the deceased and on detection of injury marks on the body of the deceased, the present case appears to be one under Section 302/201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. by accepting the death to be homicidal in nature. 12. Since the final charge sheet has not yet been submitted, this Court is not making any comment on such aspect of the matter. However, the fact remains that now the witnesses who have been examined have not named the present Petitioners who have caused the death. On the contrary, there is definitely material to establish the fact that the present Petitioners have caused disappearance of the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, a case against them is made out under Sections 201/120-B/34 of the I.P.C. 13. Since one of the co-accused, namely, Patita Paban Page 5 of 6. Pradhan has been enlarged on bail for the self-same allegation of commission of offence under Section 201/120-B/34 of I.P.C., this Court is of the view that the Petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail by applying the principle of parity, as they stand in similar footing with the above named Patita Paban Pradhan. 14. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. The release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to such other terms and conditions that would be fixed by the Court in seisin over the matter. However, it is made clear that violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 15. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 01-Jul-2024 10:38:11 Page 6 of 6.