Allowed

Rakesh Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Aug 2021ABLAPL/71/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition filed under Sections 302/304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court of Orissa granted pre-arrest bail to a petitioner serving in the Armed Forces, finding him credible, absent from the death scene, and unlikely to abscond or interfere with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail by the arresting officer on terms and conditions deemed just and proper.

Rakesh Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

0IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.71 of 2021

¶3

Rakesh Kumar Jena

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI

ORDER

Order No.

05.08.2021

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioner apprehending his arrest in Soro P.S. Case No.311 of 2020 registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.

¶15

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

¶16

The materials available on record would go to show that the Petitioner had married the deceased, who was a divorcee having a son. Thereafter, the Petitioner leaving her in his home left for his work place and within six months of her marriage, the deceased alleged to have been murdered for non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry. The case being investigated and the charge sheet under Section 302 of I.P.C. and other offences has been filed, but post mortem report indicates that a case of asphyxia arising out of a

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

hanging. A suicidal note alleged to have been recovered indicating to be a case of suicide.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the deceased, who had married the Petitioner for the second time, having committed suicide, a false case has been registered against the Petitioner and his family members, otherwise also the Petitioner is not there in the house on the date of occurrence. As such, prima facie offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. is not made out against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is serving in the Armed Forces and he has no chance of absconding, so also there is no chance of his interfering with the investigation, which is almost complete, hence he be released on pre-arrest bail, submits the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State submits that even if it is accepted that no case under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against the Petitioner is there, but his making a conspiracy prima facie and abetment of the same is not ruled out. Otherwise also prima facie attracts the offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. against the Petitioner. The said offence is heinous and serious in nature prescribing imprisonment for life on conviction and, as such, he being husband of the deceased indicted in such a serious case does not deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶22

There is no prima facie material to indicate that the Petitioner is involved in a case under Section 302 of I.P.C. inasmuch as it is not disputed that the Petitioner was not there in the spot at the time of death of the deceased. The deceased was a divorcee and

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

married the Petitioner and came and stayed in the house of the Petitioner after her marriage. There appears to be dispute in the family for the child. Investigation has substantially progressed. Petitioner is staying in his work place. He has no chance of tampering with the investigation. He being a person serving in Armed Forces has no chance of absconding also.

¶26

Hence, on consideration of the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature and character of incriminating materials appearing against the Petitioner, circumstances in which the deceased died, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner was not there at the spot when the deceased died, and marriage was love marriage, so also the Petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and least is the chance of his absconding, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner in this case deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶27

Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he be released on bail by the Officer effecting arrest on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper.

¶28

The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being allowed.

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶30

(S. Pujahari) Judge

¶31

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Rakesh Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Jena 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

Bishnu Sah Vs State of Odisha

LODHAandCO.,Kolkata Vs Satya Narayan Sadang

Trinath Gouda Vs State of Orissa

Ganeswar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Haris Chandra Sahu @ Hari Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Padhi Vs State of Odisha