Allowed

Sanjukta Garud @ Uma Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC31 Mar 2021BLAPL/7499/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to a petitioner charged with murder (Sec. 302 IPC) in the intervening night of 3rd/4th July 2020. Finding no direct or clinching circumstantial evidence and noting the absence of eye-witnesses, the court ordered release on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two local solvent sureties for the same amount.

Sanjukta Garud @ Uma Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

BLAPL No.7499 of 2020

¶2

Sanjukta Garud @ Uma Pradhan … Petitioner

¶3

-Versus-

¶4

State of Odisha ... Opp. party

¶5

31.03.2021

¶6

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).

¶7

This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with Bargarh Town P.S. Case No.239 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.657 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh for alleged commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh vide order dated 08.10.2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased Birendra Kumar Garuda, is in judicial custody since 08.07.2020 and she has been charge-sheeted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the prosecution case, the occurrence in question took place in the intervening night of 3^rd /4^th July 2020 and first the F.I.R. was lodged on 4^th July 2020 and there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the dead body of the deceased was found lying on a mat inside the room of the rented house and the door was open and the cause of death as per the post mortem report is asphyxia due to hanging. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no material to make out a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and more over, there is no material that the petitioner was

¶10

last seen in the company of the deceased in the house in question and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, produced the case diary, opposed the prayer for bail and placed the statements of Panchanan Mishra and Manoj Kumar Behera.

¶12

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of accusation against the petitioner, absence of any direct evidence and also absence of any clinching circumstantial evidence, period of her detention in judicial custody and taking into account the proviso to section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶13

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter and with further conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper.

¶14

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶16

…………………..…… S.K. Sahoo, J.

¶17

PKSahoo

Sanjukta Garud @ Uma Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjukta Garud @ Uma Pradhan 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

Iswar Chitti Vs State of Odisha

Shiba Sankar Sabar Vs State of Odisha

Guji @ Panchanan Das Vs State of Odisha

Rukman Pangi Vs State of Odisha

Ajit Patra Vs State of Odisha

Sukanti Sahoo Vs State of Odisha