The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.4193 of 2024 1) Malati Mohapatra 2) Jitendra Mohapatra 3) Snehalata Lenka 4) Babina Nahara ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Deepak Ku Sahoo State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C. ABLAPL No.4194 of 2024 Titu Mohapatra ..... State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Deepak Ku Sahoo Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 19.11.2024 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State. Perused the case diary as well as statement of the witnesses, post- mortem report as well as the chemical examination report produced Page 1 of 6. before this Court by the learned counsel for the State. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Marsaghai PS Case No - 80/2024,corresponding to GR case No- 715/2024, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498- A,302,304-B, 34 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the DP Act. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the deceased happens to be the legally wedded wife of one Titu Mohapatra, the petitioner in ABLAPL No.4194 of 2024. So far the petitioners in ABLAPL No.4193 of 2024 are concerned, they are the in-laws-family members of the deceased. He further submitted that initially the abovenamed petitioner Titu Mohapatra married the deceased and they were staying happily together as husband and wife. Later on, due to illness of the deceased, she was admitted to the Kujanga Hospital. Thereafter, she was shifted to the District Headquarters Hospital at Paradeep and later she was referred to the SCB Medical College, Cuttack, where the deceased was declared dead. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that on the basis of the compliant lodged by the father of the deceased, the petitioners have been implicated in the present case. He further contended that a bare reading of the F.I.R. reveals that the same was lodged on the basis of the suspicion the father of the deceased who suspected that her daughter has been killed by her in-laws by administering poison to her. Accordingly, the present case has been registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 302, 304-B, 34 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the DP Act. 5. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioners Page 2 of 6. submitted that as per the post-mortem report, no external injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. He further submitted that as per the chemical examination report, upon chemical examination of the viscera, no poison substance was found therein. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the death of the deceased was due to her illness and there is no material to suggest that the death of the deceased was homicidal in any manner. On such grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners in both the bail applications (ABLAPL Nos.4193, 4194 of 2024) be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to release of the petitioners on bail on the ground that the allegation made in the F.I.R. is grave and serious in nature. He further contended that there are materials on record which would reveal that there indeed was a demand of dowry. Moreover, learned counsel for the State submitted that deceased has died under suspicious of circumstances. As such, the suspicion falls squarely on the husband and in-laws-family members. Further, referring to the post-mortem report, learned counsel for the State submitted that the medical officer who had conducted the post-mortem report has opined that the internal changes in lungs of the deceased and stomach are ante- mortem in nature and that such internal changes in the air passage and lungs could have been due to aspiration of dark greenish colour fluid. He further submitted that the medical evidence available on record clearly indicates that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances. He further contended that the investigation of the case is still on. Therefore, the release of the petitioners at this juncture could adversely affect the investigation and there is every Page 3 of 6. likelihood that the same would cause in delay in conclusion of the investigation as well as the filing of the subsequent charge sheet. On such grounds, learned counsel for the State submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners be rejected at this juncture. 7. On a careful analysis of the materials on record and on a close scrutiny of the statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. as well as the medical evidence, this Court is of the observation that initially the deceased was ailing and she was shifted to the hospital. While undergoing treatment at the local hospital in Kujanga, she was referred to the District Headquarters Hospital at Paradeep and from there she was shifted to the SCB Medical College where she was declared dead. The aforesaid factual position indicates that the death of the deceased is not due to strangulation. Moreover, the post- mortem report reveals that the neck structure was intact and that two external injuries marks were found on the body of the deceased. Thus, the only other possibility as per the F.I.R. allegation was that the accused persons had administered poison to the deceased, leading to her death. In the aforesaid context, the medical examination report submitted by the SFSL report dated 17.09.2024, reveals that on chemical examination of the viscera no poisonous compound or drug was detected. Therefore, the principal allegation in the F.I.R. that poison was administered to the deceased is ruled out in view of the chemical examination report. 8. On perusal of the statement of the witnesses, this Court observes that there are no serious allegations with regard of any kind of harassment or torture meted out to the deceased, although there are allegations with regard to demand of additional dowry. It also appears that the deceased had complained about same Page 4 of 6. illness/ailment, however the in-laws-family members paid no heed to the same. This leads the Court to infer that there certainly was negligence on the part of the in-laws-family members towards the deceased. 9. On a careful examination of the materials on record, particularly the medical evidence, as well as the statements of the witnesses, this Court is of the prima facie view that the materials collected so far are not adequate to implicate the in-laws-family members in the present crime. That said, the aforesaid observation is subject to outcome of the trial in the present matter where the matter shall be gone into by the learned trial court in detail after evidence is led from both sides. Therefore, the aforesaid observation is confined to the adjudication of the present anticipatory bail applications (ABLAPL Nos.4193, 4194 of 2024). In such view of the matter, this court is inclined to release the in-laws-family members i.e. petitioners in ABLAPL No.4193 of 2024. Accordingly, the petitioners in ABLAPL No.4193 of 2024 are directed to surrender before the Court below and move an application for bail within a period of three weeks from today. In such eventuality, they shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as is deemed just and proper by the Court in seisin over the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 10. So far as the Petitioner in ABLAPL No.4194 of 2024 is concerned, he is the husband of the deceased. Since there are certain allegations which prima facie make out a case under Section 498-A against him, the said petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for Page 5 of 6. bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable. 11. Case Diary be made available to the concerned courts. Records be transmitted to the higher forum at the cost of the Petitioner, if applied for. 12. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 13. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2024 19:48:44