The High Court rejected the bail petition of the accused husband charged with his wife's murder via drowning and post-mortem burning for dowry demands, distinguishing the cited suicide case due to strong incriminating evidence and capital punishment.
Bail petition rejected; petitioner to remain in custody.
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.
CORAM : Hon’ble Shri Justice S. Pujahari
BLAPL No.1063 of 2020
Prakash @ Karunakar Mahanta … Petitioner - Versus – State of Orissa … Opp. Party
ORDER
The petitioner being in custody in S.T. Case No.107 of
2018 corresponding to Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.151 of 2018 has filed this petition for his release on bail as his prayer for bail has been refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar vide impugned order dated 23.11.2019. The petitioner has been indicted in the aforesaid case for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A/302/304-B/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P Act.
2. It appears that the petitioner has been indicted in this case for commission of murder of his wife for non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry within seven years of her marriage.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State through V.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no material is there to suggest that the petitioner has murdered his wife. It is a case of suicide. In an enquiry where a child in conflict with law is
2
facing trial, independent witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution inasmuch as they have not whispered anything against the petitioner. In such premises, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail more so when he has no chance of absconding and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. To persuade to release the petitioner on bail reliance has been placed in a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Debasish Kumar Rana @ Ashish and others v. State of Odisha (BLAPL No.11137 of 2019 disposed of on 21.5.2020).
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that incriminating materials are available on record indicting the fact that this is a case of murder inasmuch as the burn injuries found on the dead body of the deceased are post-mortem in nature. The offence was committed in a most brutal manner. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and as such considering the gravity of the offence and the punishment provided, he does not deserve to be released on bail, is the submission of the learned counsel for the State.
6. The materials on record would go to show that the father of the deceased indicted the petitioner for committing the murder of
3
the deceased daughter. Investigation in this case has been completed. On completion of the investigation, police also found it to be a case under the aforesaid offences. The petitioner is the husband. The materials on record would go to show that the deceased was done to death by smothering and thereafter to give it a colour of selfimmolation, she was burnt. Post mortem report supports the same inasmuch as the burn injuries were post mortem in nature. The petitioner also gave a disclosure statement while in the police custody being accused in the case in question, pursuant to which the pillow allegedly used for smothering was recovered from the place of concealment. So strong incriminating materials have been collected against the petitioner, who happens to be her husband. The materials show that the petitioner allegedly in order to give the murder committed, a colour of self-immolation burnt the dead body of the deceased after murdering her. The offence was committed in a brutal manner. The petitioner is the husband. The case Debasish Kumar Rana (supra) on which the petitioner relies is a case of suicide and not a case under Section 302 IPC and rendered in facts and circumstances of the said case. The punishment provided on conviction in this case is a stringent one i..e capital sentence.
4
Therefore, the decision relies on by the petitioner to persuade to release the petitioner on bail is of no assistance to the petitioner.
7. Hence, on consideration of the aforesaid incriminating
materials available on record, stringent punishment provided on conviction, circumstance in which a heinous and serious offence was allegedly committed, I am of the view that the petitioner in this case has made out no case for his release on bail.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected.
S.Pujahari, J.
PKS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to release on bail in an allegation of murder involving dowry death where incriminating materials exist and the punishment is capital.
Whether the cited bail decision is analogous to the facts of the instant case.
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Debasish Kumar Rana @ Ashish and others v. State of OdishaDistinguished¶10
Debasish Kumar Rana @ Ashish and others v. State of Odisha (BLAPL No.11137 of 2019)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Prakash @ Karunakar Mahanta
State of Orissa
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
