Dismissed

Saroj Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Apr 2021ABLAPL/1860/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a pre-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner in a suicide case involving allegations of debt-related torture and sexual exploitation. The court rejected the claim that the allegations were concocted and held that the heinous nature of the offence precludes bail before arrest.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for pre-arrest bail rejected and petition disposed of.

Saroj Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.1860 of 2021

¶3

Saroj Kumar Sahoo … Petitioner -Versus-

¶4

State of Orissa … Opp. Party

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶6

ORDER

¶7

03. 20.04.2021

¶8

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶10

The Petitioner apprehending his arrest in Tangi P.S. Case No.13 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.299 of 2021, pending in the court of J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 and 507 of the I.P.C., has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.

¶11

The prosecution allegation reveals that the Petitioner had lent some money to the deceased and thereafter sexually exploited her. He stated to have also gifted a mobile phone to her and regularly having whatsapp call with her. However, subsequently he stated to have tortured the deceased and abused her in obscene words when the deceased could not repay the money. As such torture and sexual exploitation became unbearable, the deceased stated to have committed suicide.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire allegation is false and concocted, as the deceased could not repay

¶13

¶14

the money of the Petitioner on demand, she committed suicide. Therefore, the Petitioner in this case deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation is serious in nature and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is likely to throw more light in the investigation. Hence, the Petitioner does not deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature and character of accusation appearing against the Petitioner, circumstances in which he has been indicted in the aforesaid offence, which is heinous and serious in nature, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner in this case does not deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioner stands rejected and the ABLAPL is disposed of.

¶18

As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.

¶19

S.Pujahari, J.

¶20

Saroj Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar 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

Biswanath Mohalik Vs State of Odisha

Santilata Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Kumar Dalei Vs State of Odisha

Raju Dey Vs State of Odisha

Asit Ranjan Mohanty @ Silu Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Gopal Prasad Behera Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)