Court rejected pre-arrest bail for petitioner 1 in a dowry death case requiring interrogation, but directed release on bail with conditions for petitioners 2 and 3 if arrested.
Rejected pre-arrest bail for Petitioner 1; directed release of Petitioners 2 & 3 on bail with Rs. 20,000 bond and two sureties each if arrested.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ABLAPL No.8855 of 2016
04. 04.10.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
The petitioners in this case having been implicated in Bhadrak (R) P.S
. Case No.71 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.222 of 2016 pending in the court of learned
S.D.J.M., Bhadrak registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498
A/ 302/ 306/ 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, have filed this petition fo
r their release on pre-arrest bail.
Materials on record would go to show that there was previous quarrel b
etween the petitioner no.1 and his wife, the deceased. On the fateful day, the wife of the pet
itioner no.1 said to have consumed poison. The said incident was preceded by quarrel with her
husband petitioner no.1 who was present in the house in or about the time of occurrence. His c
ustodial interrogation may likely to throw further light on the investigation of the case whic
h is in progress. Hence, he has no case for release on pre-arrest bail. But so far as petition
er nos.2 and 3, who are respectively the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner no.1 are
concerned, they were not residing with them in joint mess at the time of occurrence. No speci
fic overt act is available against these petitioners. Their custodial interrogation is not req
uired for collection of more evidence in this case. Nothing is there indicating the fact that
the petitioners shall abscond and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if allowed to go on
pre-arrest bail.
Therefore, considering the aforesaid, this Court rejects the prayer fo
r pre-arrest bail of petitioner no.1 but directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner
nos.2 and 3- Paria @ Prafulla Panda and Sukanti Panda respectively in connection with the afo
resaid case, they be released on bail on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rup
ees twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Arresting Officer with the condition that they shall co-operate with the investigation.
The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of being allowed.
Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.
..
S.Pujahari, J.
BJ
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner implicated in offences under IPC Section 498A/302/306/34 is eligible for pre-arrest bail considering custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation.
Whether the relatives of the petitioner requiring no custodial interrogation should be granted bail if arrested.
Whether the requirement for fine and sureties is necessary as a condition for bail for petitioners 2 and 3.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner no.1
Paria @ Prafulla Panda
Sukanti Panda
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court