Allowed

Samarpit Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Feb 2019ABLAPL/124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed pre-arrest bail applications for petitioners accused of committing offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 IPC and Section 4 DP Act related to the death of a pregnant wife. Finding no prima facie case supporting the allegation that medical negligence or dowry demands caused the death, the Court held that custodial interrogation served no purpose and released them on bail con

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest, conditional upon cooperation with the investigation.

Samarpit Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ABLAPL No. 124 of 2019

¶2

ABLAPL No. 124 of 2019

¶3

¶4

ABLAPL No. 127 of 2019

¶5

14.02.2019

¶6

The petitioners in both the aforesaid bail applications having been implicated in Betnoti PS Case No. 205 of 2018 corresponding to CT Case No. 661 of 2018, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Betnoti for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act, has filed this petition for their release on pre-arrest bail as they apprehend their arrest in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Opposite Party-informant so also learned counsel for the State.

¶8

The allegation of the prosecution is that the deceased was given marriage to the son of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Samarpit Pradhan. Soon after the marriage, these petitioners, who are in-law members along with their husband-Samrpit Pradhan stated to have meted her with cruelty for non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry.

¶9

It is also alleged that while the victim was carrying for the first time, her husband assaulted her, for which she aborted prematurely and for the second time, the doctor had advised not to have sexual intercourse with her, but in spite of that she made pregnant by her husband and while she was carrying and no due care of her was taken. On 18.12.2018 as she suffered in labour pain, she stated to have been brought to the Baliapal IDCO hospital and in that hospital no one was there, husband of the victim forcibly himself got her delivered and stated before the nurse that the delivery was normal.

¶10

¶11

However, such intervention of the husband of the victim, the deceased sustained injuries and her condition became critical, as such, she was referred to Balasore District Head-quarters Hospital, wherefrom the victim was referred Cuttack hospital, but the victim brought to Appolo Hospital, where she stated to have died in the Appolo Hospital and according to doctor, injury was got to her kidney. Hence, implication of the petitioners in the aforesaid offence. It is alleged that she was done to death for non-fulfillment of their illegal demand of dowry in the aforesaid manner.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some allegations are false and concocted inasmuch as the material on record as collected during investigation clearly belies the same. The evidence on record would go to show that the deceased died of Post Pertam complications but, false allegations has been made that she was done to death for non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry, in the manner alleged, which is contrary to the material collected during investigation.

¶13

In such premises, it is submitted that the petitioners, who are husband and in-laws deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant however made objection to the pre-arrest bail of the petitioners considering the nature of accusation, commission of offence and circumstances, in which the offence was committed.

¶15

After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials available on record, especially the nature of accusation and character

¶16

¶17

of evidence appearing against the petitioners in support of the charge, circumstances in which they have been indicated in the aforesaid case, substantial progress in the investigation coupled with the fact that that custodial integration of the petitioners is going to serve no purpose and no material indicating the fact that they shall abscond and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence/investigation if released on bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have made out case for their release on pre-arrest bail.

¶18

Accordingly, both the ABLAPLs stand allowed and the petitioners in the aforesaid cases be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Betnoti PS Case No. 205 of 2018 by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as it may deem just and proper.

¶19

However, the aforesaid order is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶20

The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶21

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶22

………………….. S. Pujahari, J.

¶23

AKP

Samarpit Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samarpit Pradhan v. State of Odisha

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

Debashis Das Vs State of Orissa

Shibaprasad Mishra Vs Radhakrishna Nursery

Benazir Bibi Vs State of Odisha

Madan Mohan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Alekh Hati Vs State of Odisha

Amrit Behera@Amrit Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha