Orissa High Court
Pramila Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Another ... Opposite ... on 10 January, 2024
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMA No.360 of 2023
Pramila Sahu ... Petitioner
Ms.P.P.Mohanty, Advocate
vs.
State of Odisha and another ... Opposite Parties
Mr.D.K.Mishra, AGA
(for O.P.1)
Mr. S.K.Tripathy, Advocate
(for O.P.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
10.01.2024
Order No. (Through hybrid mode)
03.
1. Heard further Ms. P.P.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.S.K.Tripathy, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and
Mr.D.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite party
No.1-State.
2. This application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed for cancelling the bail granted to the opposite
party no.2 vide order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge (Special Judge Vigilance), Dhenkanal in B.A. No. 197 of
2023 in connection with Hindol P.S. Case No. 127 of 2023
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 127 of 2023 in the Court of the learned
S.D.J.M., Hindol.
3. The case had been registered against the opposite party no.2 and
his parents Gelhi Sahu and Narayan Sahu on 26.02.2023 under Sections
498-A, 302, 304-B, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, on the
information of the petitioner who is the mother of the deceased.
4. Ms. P.P.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner
Ms.P.P.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates her
submission made on the last date and submits that the statements of the
family members of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
make out a case under Section- 304 B of the IPC and independent
witnesses had been examined in the case who implicated the petitioner
and other accused persons. 120 days was available for completing
investigation as the case had been registered under Section - 498-A, 302,
304-B, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. But the learned Court
below inspite of observing that the statement of the family members
prima facie speaks of torture on the deceased by her husband and in laws
prior to her death on demand of dowry, erroneously holding that
independent witnesses had not been examined and 90 days was about to
be completed allowed the prayer for bail. She further submits that the
petitioner had tricked the deceased his wife to commit suicide and when
she attempted to commit suicide in his presence, he did not prevent her
but has callously recorded the act in his mobile phone. She has relied on
the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh v.
Dillip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak and another reported in AIR 2023 SC
4165 and Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and another reported in
AIR 2021 SC 4865 in support of her submissions.
5. Mr. S.K.Tripathy, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2
referring to the order of the learned Court below states that although
almost three months had elapsed, no independent witness had been
examined in the case and the facts prima facie did not speak about
torture due to demand of dowry soon before death of the deceased for
which offence under Section - 302 IPC or Section 304 B of the I.P.C was
not made out. Chargesheet was submitted on the very next day for
commission of offences punishable Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 34 of
IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. So the prayer for bail has been rightly
allowed. As there is no allegation that the petitioner has violated the bail
conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner should not be cancelled . He
relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of
Bhagirathsinh v. State of Gujarat reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284,
Myakala Dharmarajam and others etc. v. The State of Telangana and
another reported in (2020) 77 OCR (SC) - 948 and Republic of India
(CBI) v. Sandip Chattopadhyay reported in (2021) 81 OCR - 106 in
support of his submissions.
6. Learned counsel for the State had made his submissions on the last
date supporting the prayer for cancellation. He is requested to submit the
case diary for perusal of the Court.
7. Hearing is concluded and judgment is reserved.
..............................
(SAVITRI RATHO)
Bichi JUDGE
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
