SK. Suraj vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J

It is stated that informant-mother has appeared through learned counsel Mr. B. Mohanty on 29.03.2023. Name of learned counsel Mr. B. Mohanty be reflected in the file as well as in the cause list and in the CMS of this Court.

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

The petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No.957 of 2022, pending before the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur, arising out of Salipur P.S. Case No.323 of 2022.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salipur, by order dated 10.03.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court.

The earlier bail application was disposed of by order dated 16.01.2023 passed by this Court in BLAPL No.231 of 2023 giving liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer post charge sheet.

It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2022 and initially the accusation was under Sections 498-A/304-B/302/34 of IPC and after investigation charge sheet has been filed on 24.02.2023 inter alia under Sections 498-A/306/406/34 of IPC.

It is the submission of the learned counsel that petitioner worked as a cook in Saudi Arabia to earn his livelihood and returned to his village on 22.10.2022 and on 27.10.2022 his father passed away and unfortunately, his wife committed suicide on the said date for which he was taken into custody.

Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are materials on record to indicate that because of the continuance mental torture of the petitioner, she was driven to commit suicide and it is also submitted that the informant is being threatened at the instance of the present petitioner for which Mahanga P.S. Case No.27 dated 21.01.2023 has been registered.

It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the informant that since preliminary charge sheet has been filed keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. awaiting final report of the viscera which would have a bearing on the cause of death and since the petitioner is a flight risk, he ought not to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State also opposes the prayer for bail keeping in view the materials on record and the filing of the FIR regarding the threat perception, which has been adverted to hereinabove since the other in-laws are absconding.

Learned counsel for the State has also placed the statement of the informant in which she has narrated about the mental trauma to which her daughter was subjected to.

On perusal of the post-mortem report, it is seen that the cause of death is due to combined effect of venous congestion and asphyxia as result of ante-mortem hanging and it is further noted that the external injuries on the deceased are ante-mortem in nature and is consistent with that of ligature of ante-mortem hanging.

On a conspectus of materials on record, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted.

Hence, it is directed the petitioner shall be released on bail. Terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.

Additionally, it is directed that the petitioner shall surrender his passport and shall not leave the State of Odisha till the conclusion of trial and shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once a week on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the said Court.

It shall be open to the informant and her family to seek variance of this order, if there is any threat perception.

If such an application is moved before the learned Court in seisin, action in accordance with law shall be taken without any further reference to this Court.

It is made clear that in the event on receipt of the viscera report, it is found that the petitioner is to be implicated in a higher offence, it shall be open to the prosecution to take steps in accordance with the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ms. X vrs. The State of Maharashtra and another (2023 SCC Online SC 279) affirming its earlier judgment in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and another reported (2019) 17 SCC 326.

It is needless to state that the present order in this case shall not be cited as a precedent in respect of the in-laws whose complicity has to be decided on the basis of materials on record in an independent manner.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

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

………………………