Allowed

Urmila Samal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Mar 2023BLAPL/158/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court released a female accused on bail pending trial in a murder case. The bench held that the first proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. applied given her gender, lack of strong evidence, and responsibilities, directing her bail on specific grounds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin, with a direction not to intimidate deceased's family.

Urmila Samal Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 158 of 2023

¶3

Urmila Samal

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. B.B. Routray, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

¶11

ORDER 16.03.2023 Order No. 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶12

The petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. (S) Case No.224 of 2022, pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Talcher, arising out of Colliery P.S. Case No.431 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences under Sections 302/120-B of IPC.

¶13

Being aggrieved by the rejection of her application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Talcher by order dated 20.12.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.08.2022 on the accusation of killing her husband with the co-accused with whom she was in a relationship.

¶15

It is stated that there is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime except the statement of the said

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

co-accused and since charge sheet has been filed on 31.10.2022, petitioner may be released on bail.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail relying on the statement of C.W.1-mother-in-law of the petitioner and neighbour Chinmay Samal-C.W.3 and referring to the statement of the co-accused, Bijaya Das recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to discovery of the ligature, which was allegedly used in the strangulation.

¶19

From the statement of the mother-in-law-C.W.1, it is evidently established that the present petitioner had relationship with the co-accused and at regular intervals he used to intervene between the petitioner-wife and the deceased-husband. The same was detested by the deceased and her family. Statement of neighbour C.W.3 is also to the same effect.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State places on record the statement of the co-accused Bijaya Das recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

¶21

It is trite law that the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be put only for the limited use, as envisaged.

¶22

On a conspectus of materials on record, it is seen that if the narration part of the statement as recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not taken into consideration, there is no other admissible material to connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime.

¶23

This Court is also conscious of the fact that the petitioner is a lady aged about 22 years and has two daughters to look after.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

It is further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per her social status, there is no chance of the petitioner either absconding or intimidating the witnesses.

¶26

Taking into account the nature of evidence and the manner of accusation and that the petitioner is a lady, keeping in view the first Proviso to Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., this Court directs the petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.

¶27

Additionally, it is directed that the petitioner shall not in any way try to intimidate the family members of the deceased who have been cited as witnesses.

¶28

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the

Santoshi

rules.

(V. NARASINGH)
Judge

Page 3 of 3

Urmila Samal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Samal 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

Aswini Mahato Vs State of Odisha

Sauna Murmu Vs State of Odisha

Sitaram Khilla Vs State of Odisha

Ganderti Chendu Vs State of Odisha

Meenaketan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Jitu Naik Vs State of Odisha