Padma Charan Sethi @ Kalia Vs State of Odisha

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner for bail in connection with Badabazar PS Case No.168 of 2023 ,corresponding to GR case No.1035 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur for alleged commission of offence under Section 302/201 of I.P.C.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 28.05.2023. He further contended that in the meantime the investigation has been concluded and the final charge sheet has

¶17

Page 1 of 4.

¶18

been filed. In the meantime the trial has commenced and three witnesses have been examined so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the some of the witnesses have been examined in the meantime, however, nobody has stated about the role of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. He further contended that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and post-occurrence evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the husband of the deceased.

¶19

Narrating the prosecution case solely, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased was initially staying with her husband. Thereafter, certain disputes arose between the husband and wife as a result of which the husband went to his village. In the absence of the husband of the deceased, a relationship developed between the petitioner as well as the deceased. He further contended that such relationship between the petitioner and the deceased was not taken up well by the husband of the deceased. On such grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the role of the husband of the deceased also comes within the sphere of suspicion. Further, referring to the deposition of the husband of the deceased namely, Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the deceased in his deposition has stated that he only suspects that the petitioner might be having a role in the murder of the deceased in this case. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the materials collected by the I.O. in course of investigation, as well as keeping in view the fact that there is no

¶20

Page 2 of 4.

¶21

eye-witness in the entire case, the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in this case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand stated that the prosecution has relied upon the CCTV footage which reveals that on the date of occurrence the petitioner was present in the house of the deceased throughout the day. Therefore, applying the theory of last seen, learned counsel for the State submitted that the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime becomes crystal and he becomes a suspect in the present case. Although, on a specific question by this Court learned counsel for the State fairly contended that there are no other materials or eye-witness to the occurrence and that most of witnesses are post-occurrence witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution is relying upon the circumstantial evidence and post-occurrence witnesses to establish a case against the present petitioner who happens to be the prime suspect in the alleged crime. He opposed the bail application of the Petitioner on the ground that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility that he might indulge in similar criminal offences. Accordingly, it was prayed that the bail application of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

¶23

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record as well as the case diary, this court observes that admittedly there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. It is only on the basis of suspicion that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case and he has been made the crime suspect. It is also a fact

¶24

Page 3 of 4.

¶25

that nobody has seen the alleged occurrence taking place and the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion. Additionally, taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the probability of the involvement of the husband of the deceased, who was not so amiable towards the deceased, has not been properly investigated in the present case and, on a conspectus of the materials on record and on a scrutiny of the prosecution case, it appears that the petitioner has been arrayed as the prime accused on a mere suspicion. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed and that the trial has commenced and some of the material witnesses have been examined, and by taking into consideration the entire of the prosecution case, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail an automatic cancellation of bail.

¶26