Krushna Mohan Gochhayat @ Milu Vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J

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

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. Case No.260 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nayagarh, arising out of Nayagarh Sadar P.S. Case No.93 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 498-A/304-B/306 of IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh by order dated 23.12.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier the Petitioner had moved this Court in BLAPL No.9695 of 2023 which was rejected by order dated 12.09.2023, since the same was during the currency of investigation. Thereafter, the bail application of the Petitioner i.e. BLAPL No.11919 of 2023 was rejected in 21.11.2023 and while so rejecting, this Court observed thus in paragraph-6 of said order which is germane for adjudication and for brevity is extracted hereunder;

“6. This Court perused the statement of the complainant-Sradhanjali Sahoo, sister of the deceased who had a contemporaneous conversation with the deceased, which is on record and that of the mother of the deceased who accompanied her to the hospital.”

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2023 and as charge sheet has already been filed on 03.10.2023, he may be released on bail.

It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the complainant-Sradhanjali, sister of the deceased and her mother in the meanwhile examined as P.Ws.1 and 3 and referring to that depositions which are on record, submits that since they have resiled, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted.

It is on record that the I.O. has also been examined as P.W.5. Thereafter, there has been no progress in the trial because of non-receipt of the viscera report.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner ought not to languish in custody because of non-submission of viscera report.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that apart from the said witnesses, there are other independent witnesses who corroborate the allegations of torture which ultimately lead to the deceased consuming poison.

Considering the materials on record and taking into account that the trial is lingering for non-submission of viscera report and also keeping in view the welfare of the child of the Petitioner and the deceased who is stated to be staying with the parents of the Petitioner, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.

Additionally, it is directed that Petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once in two weeks on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

………………………………..