Baisakhi Palei ….. State of Orissa v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 6339 of 2024 Baisakhi Palei ….. State of Orissa Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, Senior Advocate along with Mr. A. K. Nayak , Advocate Opp. Party Mr. J. P. Patra, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 09.08.2024 (Through hybrid mode) Order No. 03. 1. This is the second bail application of the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed in this Court , in connection with Bharatpur P.S. case No. 354 of 2023 corresponding to C. T. Case No. 1106 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (cog-V), Bhubaneswar under Section 302 of IPC. 2. BLAPL No. 164 of 2024 filed by the petitioner before this Court had been withdrawn on 12.01.2024 in order to move the learned trial Court. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The prosecution case in brief as per the FIR lodged by sister of the deceased on 16.08.2024 is that about one month back, while the deceased who is her elder sister was staying in Ganjam with the petitioner who is her daughter in law, was attacked in her house. She Page1 of 6 had sustained head injury and become unconscious. She had been admitted in IGKC hospital in Bhubaneswar for treatment. She had been discharged from hospital eight days back and was staying with the petitioner and her younger son in her house in Khandagiri. On 15.08.2023 at 8.00 pm in the night, she received information that the deceased had been murdered. On reaching her house, she saw the deceased lying dead on the bed with her throat slit. At the time of occurrence the petitioner and deceased were alone in the house and there used to be There had been a quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased a few days ago. The deceased and the petitioner used to quarrel with each other. 4. FIR had been registered against unknown persons. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 22.08.2023 and is in custody since then.
Legal Reasoning
5. On 02.08.2024 when the matter was heard, Mr. Sarangi learned Senior Counsel had submitted that after the arrest of the petitioner on 22.08.2023, her minor daughter aged about 5 years is compelled to reside with her maternal grandparents (parents of the petitioner), But as they are old and ailing, they are not able to take care of her or her education. So the learned Additional Standing Counsel had been directed to obtain instructions regarding the place of stay and Page2 of 6 whereabouts of the minor daughter of the petitioner and whether she is attending school. Today, Mr. J. P. Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel produces the instructions dated 09.08.2024 of the IIC, Bharatpur Police Station, Bhubaneswar UPD, where he has stated that daughter of the petitioner is now staying in the house of the father of the petitioner at village Indragarh, Dist- Ganjam and is pursuing his studies there. Learned Additional Standing Counsel undertakes to file the report along with a memo in course of the day. Registry is directed to scan the same and incorporate it in the digital record. 6. Mr.S.K.Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of suspicion only there is no material to connect her with death of her mother-in-law other than suspicion. He has also submitted that the statements of the neighbours recorded under Section – 161 Cr.P.C to the effect that the petitioner and the deceased were alone in their house appear to be unnatural and should not be relied upon. As the small daughter of the petitioner is suffering due to separation from the petitioner, the prayer for bail may be sympathetically considered. 7. Mr.J. P. Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that at the time of alleged occurrence except the Page3 of 6 petitioner and the deceased, nobody was there in the house, which would be evident from the statements of the immediate neighbours, i.e. Soni Bhola and Suchismita Ray, who have stated that the petitioner was talking with them, when her brother-in-law (son of the petitioner) called her to the house stating that he was going to the market and after the petitioner went to the house, nobody has entered the house till the return of her brother-in-law. On his return from the market he discovered the deceased lying there with her with her throat cut and the petitioner was pretending to be unconscious. An old butter knife has been recovered on the basis of her statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the doctor has opined that the external injuries detected on the neck of the deceased are possible by the said weapon. 8. Perused the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section – 161 Cr.P.C. The informant has stated before the police that on account of the activities of the petitioner, there used to be frequent quarrels between her and the deceased while they were living in Ganjam. On 1.07.2023, while the two of them were there in the house, an unknown person had entered the house and assaulted the deceased on the head. FIR was lodged by the petitioner, but it was suspected that the petitioner had done it but was blaming an unknown person. The Page4 of 6 deceased had been admitted in hospital in comatose condition in Bhubaneswar and was unable to speak. As her condition improved and she started speaking, she was shifted to their house in Khandagiri. She had been complaining that the petitioner was beating her and she would spill the beans. On 13.08.2023, the petitioner had told everybody that the deceased had fallen off the bed, so she was again taken to the hospital. On the date of occurrence, while the younger son of the petitioner had been to the market and only the petitioner and deceased were there in the house, the occurrence took place. The petitioner was pretending to be unconscious and had told that two persons had entered the house and killed the deceased and tried to strangulate the petitioner with the chunri. But the doctor did not find injury on her neck and also found no reason for her to be unconscious. The neighbours who were sitting in front of the house had stated that no other person had entered or left the house at that time. So they were sure that the petitioner had slit the throat of the deceased and killed her. 9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and the materials available against the petitioner, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is rejected. 10. Considering the submission that the five year old daughter of the petitioner is staying without her mother since almost one year, and the Page5 of 6 report of IIC, Bharatpur Police Station, Bhubaneswar UPD, I am inclined to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of four months. 11. The petitioner Baisakhi Palei shall be released on interim bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, including the following conditions: (i) She will not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail. (ii) She will not tamper or try to influence prosecution witnesses while on bail. (iii) She will surrender in the Court immediately after expiry of the period of interim bail. (iv) She will remain present in Court on each date it is fixed for trial. 12. Violation of any condition will entail in cancellation of interim bail/recall of this order. 13. No observation in this order should influence the trail court, as they have been made for the sole purpose of considering the prayer for bail.
Decision
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. ……………….. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Subhalaxmi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHALAXMI PRIYADARSHANI SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 12-Aug-2024 19:31:30 Page6 of 6