Allowed

Lingaraj Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Apr 2019ABLAPL/589/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest bail petition filed by parents-in-law accused in murder case underSections 498A/302 IPC. Court allowed bail finding no evidence of their involvement in conspiracy or murder and that keeping them in custody serves no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for pre-arrest bail allowed; direction that arrest officers release petitioners on bail if arrested, subject to cooperation with investigation.

Lingaraj Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ABLAPL No.589 of 2019

¶2

10.04.2019 The petitioners in this case having been implicated in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.08 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No.49 of 2019, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/302/109/120-B/34 of IPC, have filed this petition for their release on pre-arrest bail.

¶3

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. Perused the Case Diary along with other materials available on record.

¶4

As it appears that the deceased, namely, Laxmipriya Behera @ Nikita, who was an artist and acting in Odia films and T.V. serials, had married to the son of the petitioners, namely, Lipan Sahoo in the year 2016, but some days after their marriage, there was matrimonial discord in her matrimonial home and she stated to have been meted with cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law as she did not earn enough money as an artist. A child was also born into their wedlock However, Lipan left her parental house and stayed with the victim in an apartment in Balianta, Bhubaneswar, leaving the present petitioners. Thereafter, also their matrimonial discord continued and as such, victim came and stayed in the house of her parents at Chauliaganj, Cuttack. While she was staying in her parental house, one day in the evening her husband came and they had some wordy quarrel in the house of the parents of the deceased and then both of them went to the upstairs to have discussion. It is alleged that during their

¶5

¶6

discussion/altercation the deceased stated to have been pushed down by her husband, for which, she fell down on the ground and died.

¶7

The allegation has been made against the present petitioners, who are parents-in-law of the deceased that the deceased was meted with cruelty by the petitioners along with their son and at the instance of the present petitioners, the husband of the deceased murdered the deceased.

¶8

In the aforesaid premises, they came to this Court by filing this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for their release on pre-arrest bail, as they apprehend their arrest in this case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no material is there indicating the involvement of the petitioners in this case. The allegation of torture to the deceased by the present petitioners and also conspiracy to murder her and abetment of murder is also without any substance inasmuch as no evidence to that respect has been collected through Lipan, who has been interrogated in custody and that has been made by the parents of the deceased after death of their daughter to wreak vengeance on the innocent parents-inlaw. The petitioners are permanent residence of Gopalpur in the district of Cuttack and they have no chance of abscondance and they are also not so much resourceful or influential so that they can influence the investigation or hindrance to a fair trial. In such premises, it is submitted that the petitioners have made out a case for their release on pre-arrest bail, moreso when there is no credible materials

¶10

¶11

against the petitioners to indict them in a case of conspiracy or abetment for murder of the deceased.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant, however, makes objection for such prayer for bail with the submission that the son of the petitioners being guided by the present petitioners had done the deceased to death and the petitioners are likely to abscond in the event of their release on pre-arrest bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State also made objection to the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners with the submission that the offence, which was committed, is a heinous and serious one. So also it is submitted that son of the petitioners while in the company of the deceased, the deceased was done to death and during the quarrel, frequently call was being made to the husband of the deceased, but he had not received the same, as such, the same was proved that he was acting as the instruction of others. But fairly submits that no call details collected by the Investigating Agency in this regard. So also it is submitted that no evidence direct or circumstantial is also there indicating the petitioners to have abetted the death of the deceased or petitioners to be involved in any conspiracy. However, since the petitioners had meted the victim with cruelty while in their home and they had an effective control over their son, who was having frequent quarrel with the deceased, petitioners are also appear to be hand in glove in causing the death of the deceased. Hence, the offence alleged being serious one, he submits that petitioners do not deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail, especially taking note of the

¶14

¶15

gravity of the offence and the punishment provided on conviction, which is one of capital punishment. But it is fairly submitted that the petitioners are not so influential, so that they can influence investigation in this case in any manner and the entire evidence with regard to the murder is available with the maternal family members of the deceased and the death having occurred in the parental house of the deceased, they cannot tamper with the prosecution evidence, so also there is no material to indicate that they shall abscond, if released on pre-arrest bail.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the circumstances in which the alleged murder of the deceased stated to have been committed by her husband and the character of evidence appearing against the petitioners with regard to abatement and criminal conspiracy in causing the death of the deceased, even if the offence alleged is heinous and serious in nature and prescribes capital punishment on conviction and also the fact of their being release not likely to influence the investigation and absconding, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, who are the parents of the accused stated to have murdered the deceased, deserve to be released on prearrest bail, inasmuch as no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping them in custody, particularly when it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the State that after interim protection, they have cooperated with the investigation.

¶17

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for prearrest bail is allowed with a direction that in the event of

¶18

¶19

arrest of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case, they be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as he may deem just and proper including the condition that petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶20

The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶21

S.Pujahari, J.

¶22

Lingaraj Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lingaraj Sahoo 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

Gouri Nayak @Golari@Chita Vs State of Odisha

Surendra Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Biswajit Mandal@Bishu@Bisu Vs State of Odisha

Tofan Bhanja Vs State of Odisha

Nibedita Roul Vs State of Odisha

Anil Rana Vs State of Odisha