Orissa High Court
Alok Kumar Mishra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 14 August, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL NO.1763 of 2025
(In the matter of applications under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023).
Alok Kumar Mishra ... Petitioner
Mr. D.P.Dhal, Sr. Advocate &
Mr. K.Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. A.Pradhan, Addl. PP
Mr.Ravi Nanda, Advocate
along with Ms. M.Sarangi, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING &JUDGMENT:14.08.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of the
BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection
with Bonai PS Case No. 200 of 2023 corresponding to
GR Case No. 854 of 2023 pending in the file of learned
SDJM, Bonai, for commission of offences punishable
U/Ss.304(B)/306/406/34 of IPC read with Sec. 4 of DP
Act on the allegation of committing dowry death and
abetment of suicide of his wife by subjecting her to
torture and cruelty for demand of dowry as well as
misappropriating dowry articles along with co-accused
persons in furtherance of their common intention.
2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Debi Prasad
Dhal, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by
Mr.Kaustava Mohanty, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that although the deceased stated to
have consumed poison on 11.11.2023, but she
informed the same to her mother-in-law only on
14.11.2023, however, she was initially being treated at
home by the petitioner and his family members, when
the deceased started vomiting on 11.11.2023 at about
11.30PM and when the deceased disclosed to have
taken poison, she was immediately shifted to Bonai
Garh Medical on 14.11.2023 by her in laws and
thereafter, she was taken back by her parents, who got
her treated at Rourkela by one Medicine Specialist
namely Soraj Rath, but on 20.11.2023 morning, she
was admitted at CWS, which referred her to IGH,
Rourkela, where she was admitted and treated there,
but on 24.11.2023 she being referred by IGH, Rourkela
was again shifted to AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar,
where she ultimately succumbed on 01.12.2023 and
thereafter, on 04.12.2023, the FIR was registered
against the petitioner. It is further submitted by
Mr.Dhal that not only the viscera report does not reveal
any poisonous substance in the viscera of the
deceased, but also there is no prima facie material to
implicate the present petitioner for commission either
offence U/S. 304-B or 306 of the IPC because the entire
materials available on record does not disclose about
subjecting the deceased to torture and cruelty for
demand of dowry soon before her death, rather on
knowing about the deceased vomiting, the petitioner
and his family members had provided treatment to her
in their house and hospital at Bonaigarh, but
subsequently, after arrival of the informant, she was
immediately shifted to Rourkela where the deceased
underwent treatment, but when the health condition of
the deceased deteriorated, she was shifted to
Bhubaneswar for better treatment, however, the
deceased could not survive even after getting
treatment which includes specialized treatment for
around twenty days. Mr.Dhal submits that in the
circumstance, especially when there is no prima facie
case made out against the petitioner who having been
detained in custody for near about more than seven
months in custody and charge sheet having already
been placed, there is no need for further detention of
the petitioner in custody and the petitioner, therefore,
may kindly granted bail on any condition.
2.1. On the other hand, Mr.Amitav Pradhan,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while opposing the
prayer of the petitioner for bail submits that not only
the deceased was taken to hospital by the informant,
but also due to his stress on account of providing
treatment to the deceased, the FIR could not promptly
be lodged, but mere delay in lodging of FIR would not
wash off the allegations leveled against the petitioner
for subjecting the deceased to torture and cruelty
forcing her to consume poison which is prima facie
found out from the materials on record and the
deceased having died otherwise than normal
circumstance within 07 years of her marriage and her
death being related to demand of dowry, the petitioner
is prima facie found to have committed dowry death
and abetment of suicide of his wife and he should not
be granted bail. Accordingly, Mr.Pradhan prays to reject
the bail application of the petitioner.
2.2. In opposing the bail application of the
petitioner, Mr.Ravi Nanda, learned counsel who appears
virtually along with Ms.Madhurima Sarangi, learned
counsel for the informant submits in tandem that the
submission of charge sheet against the petitioner for
the offences itself discloses the prima facie materials
against him for commission of such offences and the
conduct of the petitioner in not providing treatment to
the deceased initially, when she was detected to have
consumed poison and there being persistent and
consistent demand of dowry by the petitioner and his
family members from the day one after marriage itself
denotes the prima facie materials for commission of
offence U/S. 304-B & 306 of IPC by the petitioner & his
family members and the deceased having died within
18 months of her marriage, the petitioner may be
presumed U/S. 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act to
have abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased
and he shall equally be presumed U/S. 113-B of the
Indian Evidence Act to have committed dowry death of
the deceased and the petitioner being the husband is
responsible for such death and thus, he should not be
released on bail. In concluding his argument, Mr.Nanda
by relying upon the decision in Buddhadeb Saha &
others Vrs. State of West Bengal; 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1457 submits that mere absence of any
poisonous substance in the viscera could not be fatal to
the prosecution case since the process of collection of
viscera and the probable reason for getting negative
viscera report as pointed out in Paragraph-28 of the
decision itself denotes that it is not always fatal to the
prosecution case.
3. After having considered the rival
submissions upon perusal of record, there appears
allegation against the petitioner for committing dowry
death and abetment of suicide of the deceased, but
although it is not permissible for the Court to
appreciate the evidence precisely to find out the guilt of
the accused at the stage of consideration of bail,
however, since the personal liberty of an individual is
sacrosanct and important, this Court considers it proper
to look at the materials placed on record at least to see
as to whether there is prima facie case against the
petitioner to refuse bail to him and in that respect, the
viscera report which is an important document can also
be seen. Certified copy of viscera report as produced
for the petitioner does not reveal any poisonous
substance to be present in the viscera of the deceased.
Be that as it may, merely because there is no
poisonous compound in viscera report, it would not
automatically exonerate an accused facing the charge,
but the same has to be considered on the existing
materials placed on record. In this case, admittedly,
after the death of the deceased at 11PM on 01.12.2023
at AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Bharatpur PS UD Case
No. 277 dated 02.12.2023 was registered. The
materials on record also discloses that the deceased
was found unwell when she started vomiting on
11.11.2023 at about 11.30PM and accordingly, she was
treated at her matrimonial home, but on 13.11.2023,
the deceased disclosed to her mother-in-law to have
taken poisonous substance on 11.11.2023 at about
9PM. The UD case record also reveals that getting such
information, the deceased was shifted to Bonaigarh
Medical on 14.11.2023 and after checkup, she returned
to her home and again on 19.11.2023, she was
medically treated by a Medicine Specialist at Rourkela
and when she was found infected with Jaundice and
urine problem, on 21.11.2023 she was shifted to IGH,
Rourkela and admitted in ICU and finally she was
shifted to AMRI Hospital for better treatment on
25.11.2023.
4. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has
been charge sheeted for commission of offences U/Ss.
304-B/306/406/34 of the IPC read with Sec. 4 of DP
Act, but the petitioner is in custody since 08.01.2024
and although, the cause of death of the deceased was
claimed to be poisoning, but subsequently the viscera
report negates the detection of any poisonous
substance in the viscera of the deceased. Further, the
opinion as to cause of the death of the deceased was
kept reserved in the PM report pending Chemical
Analysis of routine viscera. In this case, the deceased
was stated to have taken poison on 11.11.2023 which
came to the knowledge on 13.11.2023 and the
deceased survived till 01.12.2023 by undergoing
treatment at different hospitals in different places and
the FIR was only lodged against the petitioner and his
family members on 04.12.2023 at Bonai, however,
information of death of the deceased was given at
Bharatpur Police Station, Bhubaneswar which registered
UD case on 02.12.2023 and no allegation appears to
have been levelled against the petitioner till FIR was
lodged. This Court, however, is conscious of the
principle that bail cannot be granted only on the ground
for delay in lodging of FIR, but it is a circumstance to
be considered with other materials placed on record
while finding out prima facie case for consideration of
bail application. Besides, the informant, however,
places reliance on Sec. 113-A & 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act for the presumption of abetment of
suicide and dowry death against the petitioner, but
these presumptions are rebuttable presumption and
can be gone into at the time of trial since the
presumptions under these sections are subject to the
establishment of following facts; "commission of suicide
of a married woman within 07 years of her marriage
and soon before her death, she was subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection
with any demand of dowry". It is, however, in-
appropriate to invoke the provisions aforesaid sections
at this stage to refuse bail to the petitioner, more
particularly when evidence are yet to be led and the
petitioner has got no opportunity to rebut such
presumptions.
5. While considering bail application, it is to
be kept in mind that bail should not be withheld as a
pre-trial punishment. Further, an accused is presumed
to be innocent until proven guilty at the trial and bail is
the rule, but jail is the exception. Grant or refusal of
bail should be preceded by consideration of materials
placed on record vis-à-vis the allegation raised against
the person applying for bail, so also the nature and
gravity of the offences. Besides, the paramount
consideration in granting bail is securing the attendance
of the accused at the trial and if there is material on
record to suggest that the accused may not avoid the
trial, it would be definitely one of the grounds for grant
of bail. Learned counsel for the informant has of course
relied on the decision in Budhadeb Saha(supra) to
refuse bail to the petitioner even if the viscera report of
the deceased is negative, but the said decision having
rendered in an appeal against conviction and the Apex
Court by referring to the research article titled
"Negative viscera report and its medico-legal aspects"
in Paragraph-28 and overall evidence together with
principles settled has held it difficult to take the view
that in absence of any positive viscera report, the
prosecution could be said to have failed to establish its
case, however, the evidence is yet to see the light in
this case and this Court is only moved for grant of bail
to the petitioner and, therefore, this Court by giving
due respect to the principle as held by Apex Court is
neither deciding the case on merit nor is holding that
the prosecution has no case.
6. In such view of the matter and after having
considered the rival submissions and on going through
the materials placed on record and the decision which
the learned counsel for the informant relies being
rendered in an appeal against conviction, but taking
into account the other circumstance on record in
entirety and there being no prima facie material to
suggest that the petitioner would abscond or would not
make himself available at the trial and charge sheet
having already been placed with no further detention
required for the purpose of investigation and regard
being had to the detention of the petitioner since last
seven months, this Court consider the bail application
of the petitioner positively in favour of the petitioner.
7. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in
seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as
deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence
while on bail and shall not threaten, influence
and coerce any of the witnesses acquainted
with facts of the case so as to dissuade them
from disclosing such facts before the Court,
(ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall
attend the trial Court on each date of posting
without fail unless his attendance is dispensed
with. In case the Petitioner fails without
sufficient cause to appear in the Court in
accordance with the terms of the bail, the
learned trial Court may proceed against
the Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of
BNS, 2023 in accordance with law,
(iii) the petitioner shall inform the Court as to
his place of residence during the trial by
providing his mobile number(s), residential
address, e-mail, if any, and other documents
in support of proof of his residence,
(iv) in case the petitioner misuses the liberty
of bail and in order to secure his presence,
proclamation U/S.84 of BNSS is issued and the
petitioner fails to appear before the Court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the
learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate
proceeding against him for offence U/S.209 of
the BNS in accordance with law,
(v) This Court ,however, reserves liberty to
the informant and the prosecution to make an
appropriate application for modification/
recalling the order passed by this Court, if for
any reason, the petitioner violates any of the
conditions imposed by this Court.
8. Accordingly, the BLAPL No.1763 of 2025
stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the
order as per Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th day of August, 2025/Kishore
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 18-Aug-2025 16:27:50
