The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS). Pritiman Dey … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate For Opposite Parties along with Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate : Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP Mr. Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, Advocate(Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING : 16.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 26.09.2025 G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the Petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Burla PS Case No.96 of 2023 arising out of GR Case No.143 of 2023 for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 306 of IPC pending in the Court of learned JMFC-1(CT), Sambalpur. 2. The short facts involved in this case are that on 28.02.2023, one Chinmayee Priyadarsani Sahu BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 1 of 19 (hereinafter referred as deceased) came to VSSUT, Burla to receive her certificate at the convocation and her mother learnt that she is going to Bhubaneswar in the night coach on the same day at 09.00PM, however, when her mother did not receive any call from the deceased, she called her and the deceased picked up the phone and the mother of the deceased found from the voice of the deceased that her throat was being pressed, but due to presence of someone, the deceased disconnected the phone. At about 10.00PM, the mother of the deceased received a call from Phone number-9338436223 that her daughter had fallen into water and she along with her husband thereafter rushed to Burla on the next day morning only to find out the dead body of deceased being recovered from the water. However, strongly believing the petitioner and one Tudu to have committed murder of the deceased and thrown the dead body into the water,
Facts
the mother of the deceased lodged an FIR on 01.03.2023 at about 4.45PM before the IIC, Burla Police Station, who registered Burla PS Case No.96 of 2023 for commission of offences punishable U/S.302/201/34 of IPC resulting BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 2 of 19 investigation in this case which culminated in submission of charge-sheet against only the petitioner for commission of offence punishable U/S.306 of IPC, but the petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2025 just before conclusion of the investigation on 02.04.2025. 2.1. In the course of investigation, but prior to submission of charge-sheet, the mother of the deceased has filed WPCRL No.46 of 2023 in this Court with a prayer to produce certain documents such as CDR(Call Details Record) of the deceased, petitioner, one Manas Tudu and another Anshuman Dala Behera; PM report of the deceased with Viscera report and Diatom test report; CCTV footage; spot visit report of SO & ACE, DFSL, Sambalpur; Video recording of autopsy conducted on the deceased and to preserve all the documents, but the aforesaid WPCRL was later on converted to CRLMP No.777 of 2023 on the petition of the mother of the deceased. In addition, the mother of the deceased being dissatisfied with the progress of investigation has
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in CRLMC No.2665 of 2024 for de- novo investigation/re-investigation, however, both the BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 3 of 19 CRLMP No.777 of 2023 & CRLMC No.2665 of 2024 are pending before this Court. In addition, on 14.08.2023 the mother of the deceased has instituted a complaint against the petitioner and Manas Tudu before the learned JMFC(I), Sambalpur in ICC No. 20 of 2023 with the selfsame prayer as advanced in WPCRL No.46 of 2023/ CRLMP No.777 of 2023, but the said complaint was closed and disposed of on 24.04.2025 on the memo of the learned counsel for the petitioner who inter alia stated that the petitioner does not want to proceed further with the complaint as the charge sheet has already been submitted by the IO in the original GR Case record in GR Case No. 143 of 2023. 3. In the aforesaid background of the facts, the petitioner has sought for bail inter alia on different grounds. Heard, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Sr. Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Mr. Biplaba P.B. Bahali appearing along with S. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. In addition to BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 4 of 19 oral arguments both the petitioner and the informant have filed their short written notes of submissions. 4. In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Sr. counsel has urged the following points in support of the prayer to grant bail to the petitioner:- (i) The petitioner and the deceased were students of the B.Tech in VSSUT, Burla and they were in love and on the day of convocation i.e. on 28.02.2023, both of them could not attend the convocation due to their late arrival and the deceased was very upset for receiving her certificate from her friend. (ii) The deceased was arrogant and moody and addicted to liquor, and on 28.02.2023 both the petitioner and the deceased had consumed food and liquor at Samaleswari Dhaba and smoked ganja, and the deceased compelled the petitioner to proceed to P.C. Bridge by crying and the petitioner took the deceased on a motor bike to the PC Bridge, however, he informed one Jeevan Jyoti Sahoo by crying that BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 5 of 19 the deceased jumped into the water under PC bridge and therefore, the petitioner has no role in abetment of the commission of suicide of the deceased. (iii) The PM report of the deceased although reveals six external injuries including injury no.5 on the neck, but the answer to the query by Professor, Department of FMT, Burla in Paragraph-3 states that the external injury no.2-6 could have been produced during the process of drowning and the front of the neck of the deceased coming in contact with water having high pressure, the external injury no.5 could have been produced by the upper border of the top (wearing apparel) of the deceased and such mark of injury on the neck can never be considered as a mark of strangulation. (iv) The deceased having died due to drowning, the petitioner is no way responsible for the commission of suicide of the deceased. (v) Although CRLMC No.2665 of 2024 & CRLMP No. 777 of 2023 are pending, but the same being for the BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 6 of 19 purpose of de-novo investigation and production and preservation of documents, it cannot be considered to be a bar for granting bail to the petitioner. (vi) The petitioner has never misused the liberty so granted to him in the form of interim bail for a period of 45days as he has surrendered to the custody in time. (vii) The petitioner being a resident of Bhubaneswar which is far away from the place of occurrence i.e. Sambalpur and thereby, the petitioner has no chance to influence any of the witnesses in any manner. 4.1. Mr. Biplaba P.B. Bahali, learned counsel for the informant has however, prayed to reject the bail application of the petitioner by submitting inter alia the followings:- (i) The factual position reveals that the deceased was done to death by the petitioner by throwing her into the water under the PC bridge, but the theory of the suicide as advanced by the petitioner is neither believable nor has any substance. BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 7 of 19 (ii) Since the father of the petitioner was/is a Joint Secretary in the Home Department of the State of Odisha and thereby, he having complete control and influence over the police department of the state has managed to influence the investigating agency for not arresting the petitioner for a petty long period and pending consideration of CRLMC No.2665 of 24 for de-novo investigation, it would not be proper to grant bail to the petitioner, otherwise there would be ample chance for him/petitioner to influence the investigation. (iii) The PM report reveals six ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased and the injury no.5 is a ligature mark on the neck and the doctor in his report has stated that no specific findings to establish or rule out the possibility of pushing the deceased from the top of the bridge into water body. The statement of one of the witness discloses that the mobile phone and charger was found/seized from the possession of the petitioner which clearly indicates a case of forceful strangulation and commission of BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 8 of 19 murder of the deceased by the petitioner, since there cannot be ligature mark in case of drowning. (iv) The circumstantial evidence of the last seen theory of the petitioner with the deceased clearly establishes a case against the petitioner for commission of murder of the deceased. Grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage, would facilitate him to terrorize the witnesses and tamper their evidence. 4.2. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted that since the petitioner is found to have prima facie committed the offence of abetment of suicide, he should not be enlarged on bail at this stage, when trial is yet to commence. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, this Court reminds that the statutory provisions of bail confers wide discretion on the Court either to grant or refuse bail to the applicant, but such exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary or de hors the basic principles laid down by different BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 9 of 19 constitutional Courts in a catena of decision. The parameters under which the discretion has to be considered has been elucidated by the Apex Court in the decision relied on by the informant in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vrs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr : (2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 9 has held as under:- “9. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence; (ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) Danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the Accused; (vi) Likelihood of repeated; the offence being (vii) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced; and the (viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 10 of 19 6. Additionally, in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vrs. Ashish Mishra & Ors.; 2022 9 SCC 321 as relied by the informant; while emphasizing the duty of the Court and relevant consideration for bail, the Apex Court at Paragraphs 27 and 33 has held as under:- “27. We may, at the outset, clarify that power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is one of wide amplitude. A High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But, as has been held by this Court on multiple occasions, this discretion is not unfettered. On the contrary, the High Court or the Sessions Court must grant bail after the application of a judicial mind, following well- established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner. 33. Before dealing with the case at hand, we may, at the cost of repetition, emphasise that a Court while deciding an application for bail, should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. While a Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds whether the Accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. It is thus deemed appropriate to outrightly clarify that neither have we considered the merits of the case nor are we inclined to comment on the evidence collected by the SIT in the present case.” BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 11 of 19 7. Applying the principle as culled out in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) to the case at hand, there appears at present allegation against the petitioner for abetting the commission of suicide of the deceased, but according to the informant, the deceased has been done to death by the petitioner. However, the Investigating Agency after the investigation has submitted charge- sheet against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable U/S.306 of IPC. Both the petitioner and the informant heavily rely upon the PM report in support of their rival claim of murder and suicide, but the fulcrum of such claims/pleas originate from the PM report, Viscera report, Diatom test report and opinion of the doctor to the query, however, neither it is desirable nor is it advisable to analyze the aforesaid three reports in great detail to find out the pleas/claims of the informant or the petitioner at this stage, when evidence is yet to be led in the trial. However, the PM report discloses six external injuries on the person of the deceased, but the opinion of the doctor in the PM report as to the cause of death of BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 12 of 19 the deceased is due to drowning and such injuries were opined by the doctor to be simple and ante mortem in nature and could have been produced by blunt impact during the process of drowning. Further, ethyl alcohol was also detected in the Viscera report of the deceased. Although the informant put much emphasis on injury no.5 to contend that the deceased was strangulated to death but, the Professor, Department of FMT, Burla in his answer to query has opined that the mark of injury no.5 can never be considered as a mark of strangulation. These are of course opinion evidence which need to be considered after evidence of the expert being led in the light of settled principle of medical jurisprudence, but the same can only be done in the trial only, however, on principle, this Court refrains itself from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of the findings of the doctors and expert at this stage, since it would tantamount to extensive consideration of case on merits which would prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence and the same is undesirable and not advisable. BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 13 of 19 8. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has been accused of abetting commission of suicide of the deceased, but at this stage it is only the allegation, which is subject to proof and the punishment prescribed for the offence U/S.306 of IPC with which the petitioner has been charge-sheeted, is for a term which may extend to 10years and therefore, the maximum punishment is 10years, but again the Court has discretion to impose lesser punishment by taking into account relevant consideration. It is never disputed that the petitioner was granted with interim bail, but he has surrendered to custody after availing interim bail and therefore, the petitioner’s conduct in not misusing the concession/liberty so granted to him is relevant for consideration of bail positively in his favor. It is however, contended that since the father of the petitioner is under Secretary to Home Department, there is every chance that he would influence the police officials, but the petitioner having arrested and taken into custody and the investigating agency having submitted charge-sheet, it cannot be conclusively said that the petitioner is in position to BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 14 of 19 influence the investigation more particularly in absence of any materials in this regard. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was a student of B.Tech and there is no adverse report against him and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is likelihood of offence being repeated by the petitioner. The petitioner in this case appears to be a resident of Bhubaneswar, but the occurrence of offence having taken place at Sambalpur, it can be reasonably considered that the petitioner would not be in a position to influence the witnesses and the petitioner being a student, there would be hardly any material to suggest that grant of bail to him would have any adverse impact on the society. 9. It is also advanced for the petitioner that since the proceedings in CRLMC No.2665 of 2024 & CRLMP No. 777 of 2023 are pending for de-novo investigation and preservation of documents, the petitioner may not cooperate the de-novo investigation, if he is released on bail, but such assertion is without any materials and such apprehension of the informant can also be curtailed by imposing appropriate conditions. The informant has of BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 15 of 19 course relied upon the decision in Awungshi Chirmayo & Ors. Vrs. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors. 2024 INSC 249 , but such decision being for the direction of CBI investigation is found distinguishable from the facts of the case inasmuch as the Apex Court has directed for CBI investigation in relied on case, but the prayer for de- novo investigation is pending before this Court and therefore, release of petitioner on bail may not impede the prayer of the informant for de-novo investigation or even for investigation by the CBI in this case. The informant has also relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No.9053 of 2025, but in such order, the Apex Court has given direction to the State to file affidavit to know whether the investigating agency has investigated all the aspects of the matter including the possibility of the murder, but it appears that in this case the investigating agency after having duly investigated the case has submitted a charge-sheet, however, the prayer for de-novo investigation of the informant is still pending before this Court in CRLMC No.2665 of 2024, but granting bail to the BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 16 of 19 petitioner could not be directly in conflict with prayer for de-novo investigation since personal liberty of a person is sacrosanct and is guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution of India. 10. One of the important/relevant considerations for grant of bail is the tripod test; such as (i) flight risk, (ii) influencing witnesses and (iii) tampering the evidence, but the apprehension of the flight risk can be equally addressed by directing the petitioner not to leave the country or surrender his passport, if any and in any event he has no passport, he may be directed to file an affidavit before the trial Court towards the same. It has already been held that the petitioner is not in a position to influence the witness or tamper the evidence. Hence, the petitioner has satisfied the tripod test for grant of bail. Besides, it is equally important that bail should not be refused as a pre-trial punishment since the accused has an inherent right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty which principle flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India which prescribes that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 17 of 19 according to the process established by law. There cannot be any cavil of doubt about the principle of bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule, but Jail is the exception and unless there is any apprehension of accused absconding or influencing the witnesses or any other compelling reason, he should be normally admitted to bail, but such discretion must be exercised judicially. 11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, and on a careful conspectus of materials placed on record and taking into account the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody since 31.03.2025 with submission of charge-sheet in the meantime and the petitioner having not misused the concession/liberty so granted to him in the form of interim bail and keeping in view the inherent right of the petitioner to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court considers that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. 12. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed and he is allowed to go on bail on BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 18 of 19 furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties 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 condition:- (i) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court, (ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if any direction is passed by this Court in CRLMC No.2665 of 2024/CRLMP No. 777 of 2023, (iii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear affidavits to that effect and, (iv) 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 Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS,2023 in accordance with law. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed 13. of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 18:14:19 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 26th day of September, 2025/Jayakrushna (G. Satapathy) Judge BLAPL No.4176 of 2025 Page 19 of 19