Allowed

Haripada Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Jul 2021BLAPL/2762/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case concerning alleged dowry death and suicide under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B, and related provisions of the IPC. The court imposed specific conditions to ensure appearance, prevention of coercion, and preservation of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with conditions to appear in court, not threaten informant, and not tamper with evidence; violation leads to cancellation.

Haripada Jena Vs State of Odisha — Domestic Violence | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No . 2762 of 2021

Haripada Jena

….

Petitioner

Mr. Suresh Kumar Jena, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

State of Odisha

¶9

…. Opposite Party

¶10

Mr. D. R. Parida, Additional Standing Counsel

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI

Order No. ORDER

07.07.2021

05 .

1 . This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶17

2 . Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶18

counsel for the State.

¶19

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Koida PS Case No. 04 of 2021 corresponding to GR Case No. 14 of 2021, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Bonai, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B and 201/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the DP Act, has filed this application under Section 439 of CrPC for his release on bail.

¶20

4. The brief fact of the case is that the daughter of the informant got married to the petitioner in the year 2014. At the time of marriage, the informant had gifted some cash, gold ornaments and other household articles to his daughter. Later, the informant alleged the petitioner and his family members of torturing his daughter both mentally and physically, as a result of which, the daughter of the informant committed suicide.

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the couple would quarrel regularly for the deceased used to question the character of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner and the father-in-law of the deceased were absent on the fateful day. The petitioner had gone outside after taking his meal. Next, the deceased locked the room from inside and did not respond to the calls of her motherin-law. When the petitioner came back, he called the deceased, but she did not open the door. Then, the petitioner pushed the door by force and found the deceased dead, hanging from the ceiling fan. The brothers of the deceased were informed of the incident. They rushed to the spot and found the aforementioned scenario. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. But there exists no material evidence to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offences. Yet, the petitioner has been languishing in the custody since 12.01.2021.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner.

¶24

7. Considering the submissions made, facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter with conditions that:-

¶25

i) the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of case;

¶26

ii) he shall not threaten or coerce the informant in any manner and

¶27

iii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

// 3 //

¶30

8. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.

¶31

9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

10. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶33

AKP

¶34

(S. K. Panigrahi)
Judge

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Haripada Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haripada 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

Gopinath Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Sagar Sahu @ Sagar Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sk.Hugula @ Hagura @ Wazid Vs State of Odisha

Sujit Badabura Vs State of Odisha

Siba @ Siba Sundar Das Vs State of Odisha