Orissa High Court
Nanda Mallik vs State Of Odisha on 19 November, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.39 of 2018
1. Nanda Mallik
2. Smt. Soudamini Mallik
3. Prakash Mallik ..... Appellants/
Petitioners
Ms. Binapani Tripathy,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
19.11.2025
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application under section 389 of Cr.P.C.
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,
CUTTACK Heard.
Date: 20-Nov-2025 15:47:13
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellants-petitioners have been convicted for
the offences punishable under sections 498(A)/304(B)/
201/34 of I.P.C. and section 4 of the D.P. Act and
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the
offence under section 304(B)/34 of the I.P.C. and no
separate sentence has been awarded for the offences
punishable under sections 498(A)/201/34 of the I.P.C.
and section 4 of the D.P. Act by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Kamakshyanagar vide judgment and
order dated 22.02.2018 passed in C.T.(Ss.) Case No.80
of 2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioner no.1 Nanda Mallik, who is aged about 71 years
is the father-in-law, petitioner no.2 Smt. Soudamini
Mallik, who is aged about 61 years is the mother-in-law
and petitioner no.3 Prakash Mallik is the husband.
Though the petitioners faced trial for commission of
offences under sections 498(A)/304(B)/302/201/34 of
I.P.C. and section 4 of D.P. Act, but the learned trial
Court found them guilty under section 498(A)/304(B)/
201/34 of I.P.C. and further held that the charge under
section 302/34 has not been proved against them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the petitioner nos.1 & 2 have remained in custody for
more than eight years and petitioner no.3 has remained
in custody for more than ten years and it is a case based
on circumstantial evidence and there is no chance of
early hearing of the appeal in the near future, therefore,
the bail application of the petitioners may be favourably
considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
produced the custody certificate which indicates that the
custody period of the petitioner nos.1 & 2 are more than
eight years. So far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, the
custody period of the petitioner no.3 is more than ten
years. He has also produced the jail conduct of all the
three petitioners, which indicates that their behaviour
inside the jail is polite, faithful and the learned counsel
for the State has also obtained instruction from the
concerned Jail Superintendent, which indicates that the
petitioner no.1 Nanda Mallik is suffering from kidney
disease and the petitioner no.2 Smt. Soudamini Mallik is
suffering from hypothyroid. The instructions produced by
the learned counsel for the State are taken on record.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the
marriage between the deceased and the petitioner no.3
took place on 11.03.2015 and she was died on
13.05.2015 about two months after her marriage and
P.W.14, who conducted post-mortem examination has
noticed 90% burn injuries on different parts of the body
and opined that the cause of death was shock due to
excessive burn. He further submits that the brother of
the deceased, who is the informant in this case has been
examined as P.W.10 and father of the deceased has been
examined as P.W.12 and they have stated about the
demand of dowry not only at the time of marriage but
after the marriage, which was informed to them by the
deceased. He further submits that even though the
deceased was staying with petitioners in her matrimonial
house and she suffered burn injuries and kerosene smell
was emitting from the body, but in the accused
statements, the petitioners have not furnished any
explanation as to how the deceased sustained burn
injuries. Learned counsel further submits that in view of
the available materials on record, the petitioners bail
application should be rejected.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and in view of the
available materials on record, we are not inclined to
grant bail of the appellant no.3 Prakash Mallick and
accordingly, his bail application stands rejected.
So far as petitioner no.1 Nanda Mallik and petitioner
no.2 Smt. Soudamini Mallik are concerned, taking into
account their age, their ailments, the period of detention
of the petitioners in judicial custody so also their jail
conduct and absence of any chance of early hearing of
the appeal in the near future, we are inclined to release
the petitioner no.1 Nanda Mallik and petitioner no.2 Smt.
Soudamini Mallik on bail.
Let the appellant nos.1 & 2, namely, Nanda Mallik
and Smt. Soudamini Mallik be released on bail pending
disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand) each with one
solvent surety 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.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S. S. Mishra)
Judge
Rajesh
