Partly allowed

Himansu Sekhar Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Apr 2021ABLAPL/2145/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order deals with a bail application where the court dismissed the petition for two petitioners as not pressed due to a final report stating no case exists. The court allowed pre-arrest bail for the remaining two petitioners, finding no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence and noting that investigation would not be hindered.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is dismissed for Petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 as not pressed. The bail application is allowed for Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4, directing their release on bail if arrested.

Himansu Sekhar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.2145 of 2021

¶3

Himansu Sekhar Mohapatra

¶4

Monalisa Pradhan

¶5

Arabinda Prasad Patra

¶6

Truptilisa Pradhan … Petitioners.

¶7

Versus –

¶8

State of Odisha … Opp. Party.

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

06.04.2021 This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶12

The petitioners apprehending their arrest in Udit Nagar P.S. Case No.18 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.109 of 2021, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela, registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A/304-B/302/34 of the I.P.C., have filed this petition for their release on pre-arrest bail.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State, so also the learned counsel for the informant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State submits that final report has been filed against Petitioner Nos.1 & 2, namely, Himansu Sekhar Mohapatra and Monalisa Pradhan respectively indicating therein that no case is there against them. In such premises, learned

¶15

¶16

counsel for the petitioners does not want to press this application for the Petitioner Nos.1 & 2.

¶17

In view of such submissions made, the ABLAPL stands dismissed for Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 as not pressed.

¶18

So far as Petitioner Nos.3 & 4, namely, Arabinda Prasad Patra and Truptilisa Pradhan are concerned, it is alleged that they had made dowry torture on the deceased and also had the role on the death of the deceased. No doubt the allegation of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. has been made but, the post mortem report, as stated by the learned counsel for the State, reveals that the death is due to ante-mortem. The Petitioner Nos.3 & 4 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased who are residing at Kendrapara and serving at Bangalore which is far away from Rourkela. The allegation against them is that they used to torture the deceased often coming to Rourkela but, no material is produced to show that they are residing at Rourkela along with the deceased wherein she died. They have also no chance of absconding and/or tempering with the prosecution evidence in this case, if released on pre-arrest bail.

¶19

¶20

On consideration of the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature of accusation, character of incriminating materials appearing against the Petitioner Nos.3 & 4, circumstances in which they have been indicted and also it being not disputed that release of them on pre-arrest bail shall not be a hindrance to the free and fair investigation, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner Nos.3 & 4 have made out a case for their release on pre-arrest bail, more particularly when they are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and they have no chance of absconding and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail.

¶21

Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner Nos.3 & 4 in connection with the aforesaid case, they be released on bail by the Officer effecting arrest on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper including the condition that they shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶22

The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being allowed for Petitioner Nos.3 & 4.

¶23

As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the

¶24

¶25

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 25^th March, 2020.

¶26

………………….. S.Pujahari, J.

¶27

RKS

Himansu Sekhar Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himansu Sekhar Mohapatra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushanta Dhala @ Sushanta Kumar Dhal Vs State of Odisha

Jitu Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Ilu @ Lipu Rout @ Swain Vs State of Odisha

Batsalya Charitable Trust Vs State of Odisha

Biharilal Barik Vs State of Odisha

Nandita Sethi@Behera Vs State of Orissa