Purna Bagarty vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 3574 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          CRLA No.623 of 2022

              1. Purna Bagarty                    ....    Appellants/
              2. Laldei Bagarty                         Petitioners

                                 Mr. S.K. Joshi, Advocate

                                       -versus-

              State of Odisha                     ....   Respondent/
                                                       Opp. Party

                                 Mrs. Susamarani Sahoo,
                                 Addl. Standing Counsel

                                 CORAM:
                             JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                   ORDER

Order No. 17.04.2023

I.A. No.1200 of 2022

09. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).

This is an application for bail.

The appellants-petitioners have been convicted under sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code each, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for // 2 //

the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabanji vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.60/37 of 2012-16.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that appellant no.1 is the husband and appellant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased Pinki Bagarty respectively and the marriage of the appellant no.1 with the deceased was a love marriage which was solemnized on 05.05.2011 and the deceased committed suicide by hanging and as per the evidence of the doctor (P.W.14), the cause of death was asphyxia due to suicidal hanging and except the ligature mark around the neck, no other external injury was noticed on the person of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the father of the deceased is the informant in the case and he has been examined as P.W.9 and from his evidence, it appears that the deceased had no grievance against her husband (appellant no.1) and the deceased was

// 3 //

complaining against appellant no.2 as the appellant no.2 was complaining about deficiency of gold ornaments. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that P.W.9 has admitted in his cross- examination that on the date of occurrence the deceased had come to his place and she had not told him anything about the torture and ill-treatment caused to her by the petitioners. He further submitted that in view of the nature of evidence available on record, there are good chances of success in the appeal and there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future and balance of convenience is in their favour and therefore, the bail application may be favouraly considered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.14.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced during trial, the fact that the petitioners were on bail during trial and there is no material that they have misutilized the liberty while on bail, absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future, I am inclined to release the appellants-petitioners on bail.

Let the petitioners be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of

// 4 //

Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with such terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper.

The I.A. is disposed of.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

I.A. No.1201 of 2022

10. Heard.

There shall be stay of realization of fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellants- petitioners till disposal of the criminal appeal.

The I.A. is disposed of.

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

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

P