Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:15:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2457 OF 2025 Krushna Chandra Sahu …. Petitioner (s) Mr. Kshirod Kumar Rout, Adv. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 09.05.2025 Order No. 02. F.I.R. No. 334/ 2021 Dated Police Station 27.07.2021 Purusottampur Sections Section 302 IPC. Case No. and Courts’ Name S.T. Case No. 08 of 2022 pending before the learned Additional Session Chhatrapur, Dist-Ganjam Judge, 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present bail application seeking his release in connection with Purusottampur P.S. Case No. 0334 of 2021, which was initially registered under Section 307 IPC and later converted to an offence under Section 302 IPC. The case corresponds to G.R. Case No.331 of 2021 before the learned J.M.F.C., Purusottampur, and is Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:15:14 presently pending as S.T. Case No. 08 of 2022 before the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur, District Ganjam. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the informant lodged a written report at Purusottampur Police Station on 27.07.2021, alleging that the present Petitioner was in a relationship with his daughter. Although the Petitioner had expressed his intention to marry her, the informant did not consent to the proposal. On the date of the incident, the informant received information that his daughter had sustained severe burn injuries and was undergoing treatment at Purusottampur Hospital. Subsequently, she succumbed to her injuries. It is alleged that the Petitioner caused her death by using an inflammable chemical substance. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The Petitioner and the deceased were in a consensual relationship and had intended to marry, but the informant, opposed their union. Out of frustration and emotional distress, the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide. However, without conducting a proper and impartial investigation, the local police hastily submitted a charge sheet against the Petitioner under Section 302 IPC. The Petitioner had earlier approached the learned Sessions Judge for bail, but the application was rejected without due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:15:14 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner, a young man in his early thirties, is the sole breadwinner of his family, and his continued detention has caused severe hardship to his ailing mother and other dependents. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of the locality with no risk of absconding, and with approximately 20 prosecution witnesses, including the informant, already examined, there is no likelihood of evidence being tampered with if he is released on bail. 7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application, contending that the Petitioner is accused of serious and heinous offences. Given the egregious nature of the allegations and the potential for evidence tampering, the State strongly opposes the grant of bail to the Petitioner. 8. At the outset, this Court observes that its discretion to grant bail must be exercised in accordance with established legal principles, considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case. In making this determination, this Court must assess various factors, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the strength of the evidence presented, the severity of the punishment upon conviction, the likelihood of witness tampering, the risk of the accused absconding, and whether there is prima facie evidence supporting the charges, among other relevant considerations. Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:15:14 9. In this context, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan1, the Supreme Court outlined relevant factors to be considered before grant of bail and observed the following: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge" 10. Similarly, in Ajwar v. Waseem2, the Supreme Court observed: “26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the