Allowed

Samir Pradhan v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC29 Aug 2016ABLAPL/11723/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner implicated in a dowry death and murder case (IPC 498-A/304-B/302/34, DP Act 4). The Court held it was a fit case for bail as investigation was complete, no overt act was alleged against the elder brother-in-law, and he posed no risk of absconding or tampering.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is to be released on bail by the arresting officer on just and proper terms including cooperation in investigation.

The petitioner in this case having been implicated in Balichandrapur P.S. Case No.122 o f 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.684 of 2016, pending in court of the J.M.F.C., Chandikhol for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/302/34 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.

The allegation of the prosecution is that the deceased, who happens to be the sister-in -law of the petitioner, died burn injury within seven years of her marriage. It is alleged tha t the deceased was tortured by her husband and her in-laws for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and was also murdered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation in this case has been completed. Nothing is there on record to indicate that the deceased had made any specific ove rt act against the petitioner who happens to be her elder brother-in-law. The petitioner is a permanent resident of his village and he has no chance of abscondance or tampering with the pr osecution evidence, if he is allowed to go on pre-arrest bail. In such premises, he submits to release the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

Learned counsel for the State, however, opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the p etitioner advancing the submission that the petitioner soon after the occurrence did not make himself available for the investigation. No doubt, investigation has substantially progressed and no direct evidence indicating the fact that the petitioner had committed any overt act aga inst the deceased, but the offences alleged being heinous and serious in nature, the petitione r should not be released on pre-arrest bail. However, he fairly submits that the materials are available indicating the fact that the husband of the deceased was having extramarital relati onship with the petitioners wife.

Considering the facts and submissions made, especially the materials available on recor d and also nothing is there alleging any specific overt act against the petitioner and the pet itioner is the elder brother-in-law of the deceased, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, more so when there is nothing on record indicating that the petitioner shall abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if rele ased on pre-arrest bail.

Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection w ith the aforesaid case, he be released on bail by the arresting officer on such terms and cond itions as he may deem just and proper including the condition of his cooperation in the invest igation.

Samir Pradhan v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Pradhan v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amulya Ku.Jena Vs State of Orissa

Manas Ranjan Nayak@Baya Vs State of Orissa

Kunu@Kunta Dalei Vs State of Orissa

Parbe Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Mrutyunjay Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Sridhar Baliarsingh Vs State of Orissa