Orissa High Court
Santosh Patra vs State Of Odisha on 5 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.5236 of 2021
Santosh Patra .... Petitioner
Mr.ParthaSarathiDas,Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.L.Samantaray, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 05.11.2021
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State.
3. The petitioner being in custody in connection with S.T.Case
No.25 of 2021 arising out of Polasara P.S. Case No.169 of 2019
pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Kodala, Ganjam, has filed this petition for his release on bail.
The offence alleged against him is punishable under Sections 498-
A/304-B/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that the informant-Sulata Patra
lodged a written complaint before the IIC, Polasara P.S. alleging
therein that on 18.08.2019, she came to know that her daughter has
been killed by her in-laws. On the previous night, her daughter had
telephoned her and told that members of her in-laws' family had
tortured her for not bringing dowry. On 17.08.2019, when her
// 2 //
daughter denied to bring dowry, her husband as well as in-laws
conspired to kill her. Hence, this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
no role in the crime as he was residing in Surat and working there in
a private company. It is further submitted that the deceased-victim
was compelling her husband to take her to Surat for which there was
dispute between them. Due to such quarrel, the victim took the
drastic step and the case has been falsely foisted against the
petitioner. The allegation of physical and mental torture for non-
fulfillment of dowry at the behest of the present petitioner is
false.The petitioner has been languishing in custody since
21.08.2019
which is more than two years.
6. On perusal of the medical report it reveals that the injuries on the
body of the deceased are ante-mortem in nature consistent with
ligature mark of hanging by rope which was separated by the
Investigating Officer for examination. The death of the deceased was
due to asphyxia and venues congestion as a result of hanging. The
statement of witnesses and the medical report also prima-facie
makes out a case against the accused.
7. However, detaining the petitioner in custody since long defeats the
purpose of criminal justice system. In view of the judgment as laid
down in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar reported in 1979
AIR 1819 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right to have
speedy trial is a fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a
person in custody for such a long time without any trial, is not
justified and violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner.
// 3 //
6. Learned counsel for the State though opposed the bail prayer of
the petitioner but concedes the decision of the apex court.
7. Considering the submissions made, facts and circumstances of the
case, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the
aforesaid case with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed
just and proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter with
further conditions that:-
i. the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court
on each date of posting of the case;
ii. he shall not indulge in similar activities in future and
iii he shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses in any manner.
8. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the
bail.
9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of
10. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
(S.K.Panigrahi)
Judge
LB
