High CourtsSingle Bench

Rabindra Behera vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 2 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 OHC CK 0039

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.Dash, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 302, 304B, 498A · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4 · Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 113A, 113B
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 444 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 496 words

D.Dash, J

1.   This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2.

The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Kissannagar P.S. Case No.197 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2914 of 2021 on the file

of learned J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack running for commission of offence under section 498-A/302/304-B/34 of the IPC read with section 4 of the D.P.

Act, has filed this application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being the father-in-law of the deceased on the general allegation that he was joining

with other members of the family in demanding dowry and torturing the deceased for non-fulfillment of the same, he has been implicated in the case

and is in custody since 30.11.2021 simply because the daughter-in-law had committed suicide by hanging herself within a period of seven years of

marriage. It is submitted that the allegations with regard to the demand of dowry and torture are false and omnibus in nature without citing any such

particular incident assigning specific role to the Petitioner therein. It is further submitted that investigation of the case has made substantial progress

and there remains no scope on the part of the Petitioner to tamper the evidence as also the question of his fleeing from justice does not arise. So, he

urges for grant of bail to the Petitioner as according to him, further detention of the Petitioner in custody till conclusion of the trial would serve no

useful purpose.

4.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, on the face of the allegations with regard to demand and torture since the

daughter-in-law of the Petitioner has not died under normal circumstances that to within seven years of marriage; with the aid of the presumption

available under Section-113A/ 113B of the Evidence Act, the culpability of the Petitioner stands.

5.

Taking into account the submissions made; further keeping in view the materials on records as those stand against the Petitioner with other

surrounding circumstances including the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody and in the absence of any such impediment; it is directed that

the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court in seisin of the case with

further condition that he will cooperate with the investigation as and when required for the purpose.

6.

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

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 and Court’s Office order

circulated vide Memo Nos.514 and 515 dated 7th January, 2022.

.............................................