The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5233 of 2024 Bishnu Prasad Swain ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. – Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Laxminarayan Patel, Advocate Opposite Parties Represnted By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 08.08.2024 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.C. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the case diary as well as the statements of the witnesses and other materials placed on record for consideration. 3. The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with G.R. Case No.1279 of 2023, arising out of Begunia P.S. No.440 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Begunia, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/306/201/34 of I.P.C. Page 1 of 4. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the year 2022, the Informant’s daughter Ananya Swain got married to the Petitioner as per Hindu customs. However, there have been allegations that she was tortured by her in-laws continuously soon after her marriage. On 17.12.2023, the Informant heard that her daughter has committed suicide by hanging. Immediately she rushed to the house of the Petitioner and found her daughter laying on the floor. Upon enquiry, her son-in-law (the Petitioner) explained that on the morning of the same day there was quarrel between them and he assaulted her daughter. Further, there have been allegations that the in-laws of her daughter have pressurized the informant to cremate the dead body. Accordingly, the dead body of the daughter of the informant was cremated. Later on however, when the informant felt that the in-laws of her daughter have murdered her daughter, the informant came to police station and reported the matter. Hence, the present case. 5. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel, at the outset, submitted that the Petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, is languishing in custody since 24.12.2023. He further contended that initially F.I.R. was lodged by making the allegation for commission of offence under Sections 498-A/302/201/34 of I.P.C. However, after conclusion of the investigation final charge sheet has been filed for commission of offences under Sections 498-A/306/201/34 of I.P.C. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that as per the prosecution story, as unfurled from the investigation, the Petitioner had quarrelled with the deceased. Thereafter, the Petitioner left his house along with his son. The deceased was sitting with her mother-in-law. Thereafter she went to the kitchen and locked the door from inside. After some time when Page 2 of 4. the Petitioner arrived and found that the kitchen door is locked, an attempt was made to open the door, however, the deceased did not open the door. Subsequently the Petitioner managed to enter into the kitchen by breaking open the asbestos roof of the house and opening the door from inside the kitchen. He further submitted that the deceased was rescued in presence of the neighbours, namely, Manjulata Swain, Rosalini Samantaray and Nayana Baliarsingh, who are the prime witnesses to the rescue operation made by the present Petitioner. He further referred to the statements of such witnesses where they have narrated the incident and their statements reveal that the deceased confided herself in the kitchen by locking the door from inside and thereafter she committed suicide. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further submitted that although the body of the deceased was taken to the hospital, she had passed by that time. Later. Her dead body was cremated. However, it has been contended that the police without any basis have added the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. He further submitted that the parents of the deceased had also arrived at the sport of occurrence and were present at the spot. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the period of custodial detention of the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and conditions deemed appropriate by this court. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that there are ample materials to prove the guilt of the Petitioner. He further contended that the deceased committed suicide under suspicious circumstances. Moreover, the body of the deceased was also cremated in a suspicious manner. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that Page 3 of 4. a case is well made out against the Petitioner under the alleged sections and, therefore, the bail application of the Petitioner is devoid of merit and the same should be rejected at this juncture. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the materials on record and further on a conspectus of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the statements of the witnesses, namely, Manjulata Swain, Rosalini Samantaray and Nayana Baliarsingh, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. 8. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. The release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to such other terms and conditions that would be imposed by the Court in seisin over the matter. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 12-Aug-2024 13:44:27 Page 4 of 4.