Single Judge granted bail to petitioners charged under IPC and DR Act in dowry-related death case, noting poison intake without injuries, directing conditions to prevent witness tamper.
Release on bail subject to conditions including not tampering evidence and not terrorizing prosecution witnesses.
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. 7654 OF 2020
BLAPL Nos.7654 & 7655 of 2020
The matter is taken up through video conference mode.
Since both the bail applications arise out of Kisannagar P.S. Case No.81 of 2020, those have been taken together for hearing and disposal by this common order.
The petitioners being in custody in connection with Kisannagar P.S. Case No.81 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1110 of 2020 on the file of learned J.M.F.C., Rural, Cuttack running for alleged commission of offence under section 498(A)/302/304-B/294/506/34 of the IPC read with section 4 of the D.P. Act, have filed this application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for their release on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being the parent in-laws of the deceased have been implicated in the case on the omnibus allegation that they were joining hands with others in demanding dowry and torturing the deceased. He further submits that here the death has taken place on account of intake of poison when no such other bodily injury nor injury in the buccal cavity have been noticed suggesting forcible administration of poison. In view of all these above, when there remains no scope on the part of the petitioners to flee from justice or tamper the evidence, he urges for grant of bail to these petitioners as their further detention in custody till end of trial would serve no useful purpose and as such is not warranted.
Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the position that the cause of death is due to “intake of position” and that no such other feature has been marked on the dead body
// 2 //
suggestive of torture before the incident. He, however, submits that on the face of the allegation as to the demand of dowry and torture when the death has taken place within seven years of marriage and is not under normal circumstance, presumption under sections 113-A/113-B of the Evidence Act stands drawn
Taking into account the submissions made; further keeping in view the materials on records as those stand against the petitioners with other surrounding circumstances including the period of detention of the petitioners in custody and on going through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in the absence of any such impediment; it is directed that the petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court is seisin of the case with further conditions that they will not tamper the evidence and will not terrorize or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
Both the BLAPLs are accordingly disposed of.
D. Dash, J.
H
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners implicate in dowry-related death case where cause of death is poison intake suggesting no torture.
Whether presumption under Sections 113-A/113-B of the Evidence Act draws adverse inferences against petitioners.
Whether conditions regarding non-tampering and non-terrorising opponents are sufficient for bail grant.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioners
State
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
