The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.1763 of 2025 (In the matter of applications under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023). Alok Kumar Mishra … Petitioner Mr. D.P.Dhal, Sr. Advocate & Mr. K.Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. A.Pradhan, Addl. PP Mr.Ravi Nanda, Advocate along with Ms. M.Sarangi, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING &JUDGMENT:14.08.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Bonai PS Case No. 200 of 2023 corresponding to GR Case No. 854 of 2023 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Bonai, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.304(B)/306/406/34 of IPC read with Sec. 4 of DP Act on the allegation of committing dowry death and BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 1 of 14 abetment of suicide of his wife by subjecting her to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry as well as misappropriating dowry articles along with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. 2.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr.Kaustava Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the deceased stated to have consumed poison on 11.11.2023, but she informed the same to her mother-in-law only on 14.11.2023, however, she was initially being treated at home by the petitioner and his family members, when the deceased started vomiting on 11.11.2023 at about 11.30PM and when the deceased disclosed to have taken poison, she was immediately shifted to Bonai Garh Medical on 14.11.2023 by her in laws and thereafter, she was taken back by her parents, who got her treated at Rourkela by one Medicine Specialist namely Soraj Rath, but on 20.11.2023 morning, she was admitted at CWS, which referred her to IGH, Rourkela, where she was admitted and treated there, BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 2 of 14 but on 24.11.2023 she being referred by IGH, Rourkela was again shifted to AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where she ultimately succumbed on 01.12.2023 and thereafter, on 04.12.2023, the FIR was registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted by Mr.Dhal that not only the viscera report does not reveal any poisonous substance in the viscera of the deceased, but also there is no prima facie material to implicate the present petitioner for commission either offence U/S. 304-B or 306 of the IPC because the entire materials available on record does not disclose about subjecting the deceased to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry soon before her death, rather on knowing about the deceased vomiting, the petitioner and his family members had provided treatment to her in their house and hospital at Bonaigarh, but subsequently, after arrival of the informant, she was immediately shifted to Rourkela where the deceased underwent treatment, but when the health condition of the deceased deteriorated, she was shifted to Bhubaneswar for better treatment, however, the BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 3 of 14 deceased could not survive even after getting treatment which includes specialized treatment for around twenty days. Mr.Dhal submits that in the circumstance, especially when there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner who having been detained in custody for near about more than seven months in custody and charge sheet having already been placed, there is no need for further detention of the petitioner in custody and the petitioner, therefore, may kindly granted bail on any condition. 2.1. On the other hand, Mr.Amitav Pradhan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer of the petitioner for bail submits that not only the deceased was taken to hospital by the informant, but also due to his stress on account of providing treatment to the deceased, the FIR could not promptly be lodged, but mere delay in lodging of FIR would not wash off the allegations leveled against the petitioner for subjecting the deceased to torture and cruelty forcing her to consume poison which is prima facie found out from the materials on record and the BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 4 of 14 deceased having died otherwise than normal circumstance within 07 years of her marriage and her death being related to demand of dowry, the petitioner is prima facie found to have committed dowry death and abetment of suicide of his wife and he should not be granted bail. Accordingly, Mr.Pradhan prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. 2.2. In opposing the bail application of the petitioner, Mr.Ravi Nanda, learned counsel who appears virtually along with Ms.Madhurima Sarangi, learned counsel for the informant submits in tandem that the submission of charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences itself discloses the prima facie materials against him for commission of such offences and the conduct of the petitioner in not providing treatment to the deceased initially, when she was detected to have consumed poison and there being persistent and consistent demand of dowry by the petitioner and his family members from the day one after marriage itself denotes the prima facie materials for commission of offence U/S. 304-B & 306 of IPC by the petitioner & his BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 5 of 14 family members and the deceased having died within 18 months of her marriage, the petitioner may be presumed U/S. 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act to have abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased and he shall equally be presumed U/S. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act to have committed dowry death of the deceased and the petitioner being the husband is responsible for such death and thus, he should not be released on bail. In concluding his argument, Mr.Nanda by relying upon the decision in Buddhadeb Saha & others Vrs. State of West Bengal; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1457 submits that mere absence of any poisonous substance in the viscera could not be fatal to the prosecution case since the process of collection of viscera and the probable reason for getting negative viscera report as pointed out in Paragraph-28 of the decision itself denotes that it is not always fatal to the prosecution case. 3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for committing dowry BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 6 of 14 death and abetment of suicide of the deceased, but although it is not permissible for the Court to appreciate the evidence precisely to find out the guilt of the accused at the stage of consideration of bail, however, since the personal liberty of an individual is sacrosanct and important, this Court considers it proper to look at the materials placed on record at least to see as to whether there is prima facie case against the petitioner to refuse bail to him and in that respect, the viscera report which is an important document can also be seen. Certified copy of viscera report as produced for the petitioner does not reveal any poisonous substance to be present in the viscera of the deceased. Be that as it may, merely because there is no poisonous compound in viscera report, it would not automatically exonerate an accused facing the charge, but the same has to be considered on the existing materials placed on record. In this case, admittedly, after the death of the deceased at 11PM on 01.12.2023 at AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Bharatpur PS UD Case No. 277 dated 02.12.2023 was registered. The BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 7 of 14 materials on record also discloses that the deceased was found unwell when she started vomiting on 11.11.2023 at about 11.30PM and accordingly, she was treated at her matrimonial home, but on 13.11.2023, the deceased disclosed to her mother-in-law to have taken poisonous substance on 11.11.2023 at about 9PM. The UD case record also reveals that getting such information, the deceased was shifted to Bonaigarh Medical on 14.11.2023 and after checkup, she returned to her home and again on 19.11.2023, she was medically treated by a Medicine Specialist at Rourkela and when she was found infected with Jaundice and urine problem, on 21.11.2023 she was shifted to IGH, Rourkela and admitted in ICU and finally she was shifted to AMRI Hospital for better treatment on 25.11.2023. 4. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has been charge sheeted for commission of offences U/Ss. 304-B/306/406/34 of the IPC read with Sec. 4 of DP Act, but the petitioner is in custody since 08.01.2024 and although, the cause of death of the deceased was BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 8 of 14 claimed to be poisoning, but subsequently the viscera report negates the detection of any poisonous substance in the viscera of the deceased. Further, the opinion as to cause of the death of the deceased was kept reserved in the PM report pending Chemical Analysis of routine viscera. In this case, the deceased was stated to have taken poison on 11.11.2023 which came to the knowledge on 13.11.2023 and the deceased survived till 01.12.2023 by undergoing treatment at different hospitals in different places and the FIR was only lodged against the petitioner and his family members on 04.12.2023 at Bonai, however, information of death of the deceased was given at Bharatpur Police Station, Bhubaneswar which registered UD case on 02.12.2023 and no allegation appears to have been levelled against the petitioner till FIR was lodged. This Court, however, is conscious of the principle that bail cannot be granted only on the ground for delay in lodging of FIR, but it is a circumstance to be considered with other materials placed on record while finding out prima facie case for consideration of BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 9 of 14 bail application. Besides, the informant, however, places reliance on Sec. 113-A & 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act for the presumption of abetment of suicide and dowry death against the petitioner, but these presumptions are rebuttable presumption and can be gone into at the time of trial since the presumptions under these sections are subject to the establishment of following facts; “commission of suicide of a married woman within 07 years of her marriage and soon before her death, she was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry”. It is, however, in- appropriate to invoke the provisions aforesaid sections at this stage to refuse bail to the petitioner, more particularly when evidence are yet to be led and the petitioner has got no opportunity to rebut such presumptions. 5. While considering bail application, it is to be kept in mind that bail should not be withheld as a pre-trial punishment. Further, an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty at the trial and bail is BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 10 of 14 the rule, but jail is the exception. Grant or refusal of bail should be preceded by consideration of materials placed on record vis-(cid:224)-vis the allegation raised against the person applying for bail, so also the nature and gravity of the offences. Besides, the paramount consideration in granting bail is securing the attendance of the accused at the trial and if there is material on record to suggest that the accused may not avoid the trial, it would be definitely one of the grounds for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the informant has of course relied on the decision in Budhadeb Saha(supra) to refuse bail to the petitioner even if the viscera report of the deceased is negative, but the said decision having rendered in an appeal against conviction and the Apex Court by referring to the research article titled “Negative viscera report and its medico-legal aspects” in Paragraph-28 and overall evidence together with principles settled has held it difficult to take the view that in absence of any positive viscera report, the prosecution could be said to have failed to establish its case, however, the evidence is yet to see the light in BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 11 of 14 this case and this Court is only moved for grant of bail to the petitioner and, therefore, this Court by giving due respect to the principle as held by Apex Court is neither deciding the case on merit nor is holding that the prosecution has no case. 6. In such view of the matter and after having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials placed on record and the decision which the learned counsel for the informant relies being rendered in an appeal against conviction, but taking into account the other circumstance on record in entirety and there being no prima facie material to suggest that the petitioner would abscond or would not make himself available at the trial and charge sheet having already been placed with no further detention required for the purpose of investigation and regard being had to the detention of the petitioner since last seven months, this Court consider the bail application of the petitioner positively in favour of the petitioner. BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 12 of 14 7. 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 and shall not threaten, influence and coerce any of the witnesses acquainted with facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court, (ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law, (iii) the petitioner shall inform the Court as to his place of residence during the trial by providing his mobile number(s), residential address, e-mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of his residence, (iv) in case the petitioner misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence, proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS is issued and the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 13 of 14 proceeding against him for offence U/S.209 of the BNS in accordance with law, (v) This Court ,however, reserves liberty to the informant and the prosecution to make an appropriate application for modification/ recalling the order passed by this Court, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 14th day of August, 2025/Kishore Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Aug-2025 16:27:50 BLAPL No.1763 of 2025 Page 14 of 14