Jiban Krushna Sahu vs State Of Odisha

S.K. Sahoo, J

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Balasore Sadar P.S. Case No.347 of 2020

corresponding to C.T. Case No.980 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (R), Balasore for alleged commission of offences under sections

498-A, 302, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the D.P. Act.

The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore which was rejected on 06.01.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased Sabitarani Pradhan, is in judicial custody since

20.11.2020 and he has been charge sheeted under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the D.P. Act. It is

further submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized in July 2020 and the occurrence in question took place on

20.11.2020 and though the charge sheet has been submitted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but there is no clinching material available on

record against the petitioner to show that it is a case of murder rather the post mortem report indicates that the cause of death of the deceased was

asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and the ligature (saree) which was sent for verification by the Medical Officer was verified and it was

opined that the ligature produced was capable of carrying the weight of the deceased. He further submitted that no other external injury except the

ligature mark around the neck was noticed on the person of the deceased and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably

considered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the death took place within four months of the

marriage and the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased namely Sarbeswar Pradhan and he has specifically stated about the demand of dowry

and continuous physical and mental torture on the deceased on account of demand dowry.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature and gravity of the accusation, short period within which

the deceased died after marriage and the statements of the family members of the deceased regarding torture on the deceased by the petitioner, while

not inclining to release the petitioner on bail, I direct the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Balasore to expedite the commitment of the case to the Court of

Sessions, if there is no other impediment and the learned trial Court shall do well to frame the charge at an earliest and at the first instance, steps shall

be taken for examination of the material witnesses. The petitioner is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after examination of the material witnesses

in the learned trial Court.

A copy of the order be communicated for compliance to the concerned Court.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available

in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s

Notice No. 4587 dated 25th March 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April 2021.

…………………………….