The court allowed an application for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving kidnapping and culpable homicide. Finding no direct material of forcible poison administration and noting the charge sheet was submitted, bail was granted with furnishing surety.
Released on bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like amount.
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.
BLAPL No.8154 of 2016 12.5.2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for th
e State on the application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for release of the petitioner on bail who
allegedly involved for the offence under sections 363/366/302 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct material to show th
at the petitioner has administered poison to the deceased, but on the other hand, there was lo
ve affair between the petitioner and the deceased. He further submits that the F.I.R. was lodg
ed on 6.5.2016 which is 15 days after the occurrence. There was no F.I.R. to the kidnapping of
the girl immediately after kidnapping although it is alleged that on 16.4.2016 the deceased h
as been kidnapped. He also submits that the doctors evidence is silent about the exact nature
of death and he does not disclose about forcible administration of poison to the deceased as t
here was no sign of such injury on her body. He further submits that charge sheet has been sub
mitted and the petitioner is in custody since 15.7.2016, for which lenient view may be taken t
o release the petitioner on bail on any condition as deemed just and proper.
Learned Addl. Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that the witness ha
s seen the deceased with the petitioner on 16.4.2016 and another witness has stated that the d
eceased had told her that the petitioner has administered her poison but doctor on query did n
ot find any administration of poison by applying force.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, regard being
had to the facts and circumstances of the case including the statements of the witnesses and
the report of the doctor, there appears no direct
material to show forcible administration of poison by the
petitioner to the victim girl, fact that the post-mortem examination report is not clear about
the homicidal death of the deceased, fact that the charge sheet has been submitted, fact that
the petitioner being local person there is no chance of her absconding or influencing the wi
tnesses, let petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000.00 (rupees fi
fty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the le
arned Sessions Judge, Deogarh in S.T. Case No.85 of 2016 with the conditions that (i) The pet
itioner no.2 shall appear before the court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting;
(ii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; and (iii) he s
hall not commit any offence while on bail. Violation of any of the aforesaid terms shall entai
l cancellation of the bail.
Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Dr.D.P.Choudhury, J.
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail on the charges of kidnapping and culpable homicide.
Whether there is sufficient evidence of forcible administration of poison to deny bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Petitioner
The State
Dr.D.P.Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court