Orissa High Court
Uttam Jena @ Uttam vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 23 June, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 15098 of 2023
Uttam Jena @ Uttam .... Petitioner
Kumar Jena
Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. K. Lenka, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
23.06.2025
Order No.
05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in
connection with C.T. Case No.177 of 2021 pending on
the file of learned J.M.F.C. Soro arising out of Soro
P.S. Case No.84 of 2021 for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 498-A/ 304-B/302/ 506/34
IPC, r/w Sec 4 D.P. Act.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
Petitioner is the husband and the mother-in-law, who
was the co-accused, faced trial and was acquitted by
the judgment 30.06.2023 in S.T. Case No.14/129 of
2022/2021.
4. It is the further submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that in the meanwhile the
father-in-law and the brother-in-law were directed to
be released on surrendering.
5. And, referring to the deposition of P.W.6 and
the observation of the learned trial Court in
paragraph-25 of the judgment of acquittal of the
mother-in-law, it is submitted that prima facie its not
a case under Section 302 of IPC and that ought not to
be lost sight of merely because the Petitioner is the
husband.
6. For convenience of reference, paragraph-7 of
the evidence of P.W.6 in cross-examination and the
observation of the learned trial Court in paragraph-25
referred to herein above are extracted herein above;
Paragraph-7 of the evidence of P.W.6 in cross-
examination;
"xxx xxx xxx
7.It is a fact that the deceased was
loved by her in-laws and that I had given gold
ring, bangles other house holds articles and
cash of Rs.55,000/- to the groom side as per
their demand and that the Mother- in law,
Brother-in-law and other members demanded
cash of Rs.50,000/- and that they have not
tortured the deceased after her marriage till her
death and that the deceased wanted to go
Bangalore with Uttam and that as Uttam did
not take her, she committed suicide by bolting
the door from inside and that accused and
other in-laws members were not available at
home and that the accused is not responsible
for her death and that the accused and their
family members had not killed my daughter
and that I am deposing falsehood.
xxx xxx xxx"
The observation of the learned trial Court in paragraph-25;
"xxx xxx xxx
25. Adverting over the nature and cause of
death of deceased, it would be relevant to
mention that the Investigating Officer
conducted inquest over the dead body of
deceased and prepared the inquest report
marked as Ext.P-5/a which discloses that the
cause of death could not be ascertained. Apart
from that the post mortem report (Ext.P-6)
discloses that final opinion was reserved
pending for chemical analysis of the preserved
viscera. However, the report of the chemical
analyser was not produced. The Medical
Officer(P.W.12) stated that there was one
abrasion over the posterior aspect on elbow
joint and one bruise over ankle joint but in his
cross-examination stated that the autopsy
report is based on the most probable factors.
To speak in other words, the medical evidence
is silent with regard to actual cause of death of
deceased. In this connection, it is well settled
law that absence of definite medical opinion
about homicidal death of deceased in
comprehension, a serious setback to the
prosecution case. There is no definite medical
opinion about the death of deceased, it is
difficult to make any conclusive opinion that the
deceased was murdered. In view of the above
analysis, it is clearly established that chain of
circumstantial evidence relied upon by the
prosecution to prove the charge against the
accused is visibly incomplete.
xxx xxx xxx"
7. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Lenka per
contra submits that the evidence on record in respect
of whom the trial was conducted that cannot ennure
to the benefit of the co-accused.
8. There is no cavil about such proposition of law.
9. Taking into account the nature of evidence on
record that of P.W.6 as well as the judgment of the
learned Trial Court and the observation regarding the
cause of death, this Court is persuaded to hold that
custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is not
warranted merely because he is the husband.
10. And, in this context this Court relies on the
judgment of the Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another reported in
2023 SCC Online SC 452 clarifying the position of
law that anticipatory bail is another facet of bail and
the same standard also apply while considering an
application for anticipatory bail save and except the
special conditions as stated.
11. On a conspectus of materials on record, this
Court directs that on surrendering within three weeks
hence and moving for bail, the Petitioner shall be
released on bail by the learned Court in seisin on
such terms as deemed just and proper.
12. Before releasing the learned Court shall verify
as to whether order of this Court has been assailed
before the Apex Court and if so, the result thereof.
13. It is needless to state that the Petitioner shall
cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
14. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.
15. U.C.C. as per rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Santoshi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
