Prakash Kumar Khuntia vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J

Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate has filed an appearance memo in Court today. The same is taken on record.

Heard learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned Senior Advocate for the Informant.

The Petitioner-husband is an accused in C.T. Case No.3304 of 2022 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, arising out of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.288 of 2022 for commission of the offence under Sections 498-A/302/304-B/34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P Act.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s. 439 Cr.P.C by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, by order dated 17.01.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 31.05.2022 and charge sheet has been filed on 26.09.2022 and since co-accused persons have been released on bail, further continuance of the Petitioner is not warranted.

It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that since charge sheet has been filed under Section 306 IPC and investigation admittedly having been over, further continuance of the Petitioner becomes punitive. Hence, he may be released on bail.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Informant opposes the prayer referring to the statement on record and also the post-mortem report.

Learned counsel for the State referring to the materials on record submits that the Petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

This Court is conscious of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51 wherein the question of parity has been specifically dealt with and in dealing with the same, the apex Court has observed thus:

“General right to bail of accused persons and others.

4.-(I) xxx xxx xxx

xxx  xxx xxx

Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offense shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.”

It bears no repetition that the dictum of any judgment cannot be applied bereft of the facts which are peculiar to each case.

In the case at hand from the post-mortem it is clearly revealed thus:

“J- OPINION

All injuries are ante mortem in nature and consistent with the history provided by I/O. 10(i) could have been as a result of the application of soft and broad ligature material. 10(ii) and (iii) could have been as a result of hard and blunt force impact and are about 2-4 days old prior to death. 10(v) and (v) could have been as a result of nail scratch and nail marks and are fresh (within 12 hours prior to death).

xxx xxx xxx”

Considering the above and the statements on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application.

This Court is of the firm view that the co-accused, in-laws who are released on bail are not similarly circumstanced. Hence, the question of parity cannot be applied.

The BLAPL is accordingly rejected.

………………………..