Mantu @ Narayan vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 4833 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            CRLA No. 423 of 2019

                 1. Mantu @ Narayan
                    Dalei
                 2. Gangadhar Dalei
                 3. Debaki Dalei                   ....Appellants/
                                                      Petitioners
                                         Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate
                                     -versus-
                 State of Odisha              .... Respondent/
                                                      Opp. Party
                        Mr. P.B. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel

                                     CORAM:

                               JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

                                  ORDER

Order No. 08.04.2021

I.A. No.447 of 2020 and I.A. 282 of 2021

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

2. The the applications have been filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to appellant no.1 Mantu @ Narayan Dalei (in I.A. No.447 of 2020) and appellant no.2 Gangadhar Dalei (in I.A. No.282 of 2021).

3. Heard.

4. Both the appellants along with appellant no.3 have been convicted under sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the D.P Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, to // 2 //

undergo further R.I. for six months each for the offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act and R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for six months each for the offence under section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for seven years each for the offence under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code with a further direction that the substantive sentences for the offences are to run concurrently by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anandapur in Sessions Trial Case No.05/246 of 2017/13.

5. Perused the impugned judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that earlier the bail application of appellant no.2 was rejected by this Court in I.A. No.1008 of 2019 as per order dated 19.12.2019 while granting bail to appellant no.3 Debaki Dalei. He submitted that both the appellants were taken into judicial custody during investigation of the case on 08.07.2013 and appellant no.2 was granted bail on 04.12.2013 whereas the appellant no.1 was granted bail on 21.08.2015 and again after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment on 07.05.2019, they are in judicial custody. He further submitted that out of seven years of substantive sentence imposed in toto, the appellants have undergone sentence for a substantial period and while on bail during trial, they have never misutilised their liberty. He further submitted that the marriage between the deceased Padmini and appellant no.1 was solemnized on 08.03.2013 and the deceased committed suicide within four months of her marriage and the doctor (P.W.6) has opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to tight ligature over the throat which was suicidal in nature. It is contended that the doctor has not noticed any external injuries on the body of the deceased to substantiate

// 3 //

the prosecution allegation of any kind of physical violence on her. He further submitted that the appellants have good chance of success in the appeal and there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future and therefore, the bail applications of the appellant no.1 and 2 may be favourably considered.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of the informant (P.W.1) as well as the doctor (P.W.6).

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the substantive sentence already undergone by both the appellants and the fact that the appellants were on bail during trial and there is no allegation of misutilization of their liberty while on bail and absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future, the prayer for bail is allowed.

9. Let the appellant nos.1 and 2 be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

10. Both the I.As. are disposed of.

11. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.

RKM ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

// 4 //