The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4875 of 2025 Sidhhatha Malik @ Sidhartha …. Petitioner Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate State of Odisha …. Opp. Party -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 14.05.2025 1. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Tihidi P.S. Case No.58 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.345 of 2025 registered on the allegation of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 85/80/103/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. The petitioner had approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Bail Application No. 250 of 2025 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 29.04.2025 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail. Page 1 of 5 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 14.02.2025, the complainant reported at the P.S. alleging that on 30.05.2023, his sister had married to the present petitioner as per the hindu rites and customs. After few days of marriage, the in-laws of his sister started torturing her both physically and mentally demanding more dowry. On 14.02.2025, the complainant received information that his has died and alleged that her in-laws have committed murder. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. After the investigation, the charge sheet has already been filed in the present case on 12.04.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 85/80/103/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The petitioner has been in custody since 15.02.2025. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS has been read out at the Bar extensively. All the witnesses have stated that the deceased, who is the wife of the present petitioner has committed suicide inside the room closing the door from inside. The witnesses have also stated that Page 2 of 5 they have used Tulu Pump to break open the door and recovered the dead body. The witnesses namely Snehalata Malika, Radharani Malika, Gobinda Malika have been recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C which have been relied by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner had applied for grant of bail before the learned trial Court vide order dated 29.04.2025. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak has rejected the bail application of the petitioner, inter alia, observing as under: the “The I.O. also examined the witnesses such as Sebati Malika informant) (the mother of Ratikanta Malika, Sushanta Malika, Gobinda Chandra Malika, Srinibas Malika, Radharani Malika, Rakesh Malika, Jitendra Malika and Snehalata Malika. They all are the neighbours of the bail-applicant. They have stated that the deceased had committed suicide without any cause by locking the door of her bedroom. They have certified the conduct of the bail-applicant as a good person. They all have stated that there was no quarrel since the date of marriage of the deceased with the bail-applicant either between the bail- applicant and his deceased-wife or within the in- law’s family members and the deceased. A comparative study of the statements of these two sets of witnesses make it clear that they both belong to two different camps. So, their statements at least at present can be said to be the statements of partition witnesses. The death of the deceased was caused within seven years of marriage. It is alleged by the family members of the deceased that because of non- fulfillment of the demand of additional dowry by the bail-applicant and his family members, the to continuous deceased has been subjected Page 3 of 5 physical and mental torture since the date of her marriage till her death. Considering the nature of allegation made against the bail-applicant, imprudent to consider the prayer for liberty of the bail-applicant as he is the husband of the deceased. is it Hence, the bail application filed by the bail- applicant namely Sidhartha Malik stands rejected.” 6. Regard being had to the nature of the accusation and the period of custody of the petitioner since 15.02.2025 and the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the present case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Court below on each date of hearing without fail. (ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till the disposal of the trial; (iii) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever; and (iv) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) He shall not be in touch with the victim and try to influence the victim in any manner whatsoever. (vi) He shall be released on bail subject to verification of similar type of antecedents. Page 4 of 5 In the event the petitioner is found wanting for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 8. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Subhasis Judge (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 15-May-2025 20:35:01 Page 5 of 5