Regarding an anticipatory bail application, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender within three weeks to the Specific Designated Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, for release on bail under scheme rules.
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.
ABLAPL No.14991 of 2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner being the mother-in-law of the deceased has been implicated in the case, on the general allegation that she with her son and husband were torturing the deceased for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and as the death in the case has taken place within four months of marriage that to not under normal circumstance. He further submits that the allegation with regard to demand of dowry and torture are omnibus in nature and the son and husband of this petitioner having been arrested in the case are in custody. It is his submission that the F.I.R. version that the deceased was murdered by the petitioner and others has been negated by the report of the Doctor conducting the autopsy over the dead body by his opinion that the death is on account of asphyxia resulting from ante-mortem hanging. In view of all these above, he submits that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to this petitioner, who is aged about 50 years and a house wife, as according to him, there is no scope for the petitioner to file from justice and tamper the evidence.
Learned counsel for the State and informant oppose the move. According to them, the death of the deceased has not taken
place under normal circumstance and it is within a very short period of marriage. It is submitted that the materials on record show that few days before the incident the deceased has been brought by the petitioner and others to their house and that the disturbance was continuing. In view of all these above, with the available presumption under section 113-A/113-B of the Evidence Act, prima facie, the culpability of the Petitioner stands drawn.
Refuting the submissions as above, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. version as to the information by the deceased as regards disturbance is not that specific on the score that this petitioner had played any such significant role.
Considering the submissions and viewing the nature of accusations against the petitioner as also other surrounding circumstances, it is directed that in the event the petitioner surrenders before the court in seisin of the case in connection with Balasore Sadar P.S. Case No.347 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.980 of 2020 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Balasore within three weeks hence and moves for her release on bail, she shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as would be deemed just and proper by the said court.
The ABLAPL is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
……………………..
H
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner alleging denial of justice and no possibility of tampering with evidence.
Whether the presumption under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act points to the petitioner's culpability.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Mother-in-law)
State
Unknown
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
