Disposed¶24

Subhashree Sukrishna Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Jan 2025ABLAPL/394/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest / anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; ABLAPL; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; refusal of direct pre-arrest bail with conditional surrender-and-bail direction within four weeks; BNS 2023 sections 109, 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(2), 82(1), 85; Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 Section 4; Puruna Bazar P.S. Case No.02 of 2025; G.R. Case No.03 of 2025; J.M.F.C. (Cog.1) Bhadrak; investigation ongoing; State opposed bail on absconding risk.

What did the court decide?

Direct pre-arrest bail refused; however, the Petitioner was directed that upon surrender before the court in seisin within four weeks and moving a bail application, she shall be released on bail on terms deemed just and proper. ¶24

Subhashree Sukrishna Das Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.394 of 2025

¶3

Subhashree Sukrishna Das

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. – Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State Of Odisha

¶8

.....

¶9

Opposite Party

¶10

Represented By Adv. –

¶11

Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

20.01.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

¶19

The present application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Puruna Bazar P.S. Case No.02 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.03 of 2025, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C. (Cog.1), Bhadrak, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 109/115(2)/296/3(5)/351(2)/82(1)/85 of B.N.S. 2023 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶20

It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a lady and the allegation that he was married to the husband of the Informant for second time. He further contended that

¶21

Page 1 of 1.

¶22

the injured has not caused any injury. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the event she is released on pre-arrest bail.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that investigation is still on and that in the event the Petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he might abscond from justice which would eventually cause delay in conclusion of the investigation.

¶24

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. However, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner surrenders before the Court in seisin over the matter within a period of four weeks from today and moves an application for bail, the Court in seisin over the matter shall release her on bail in connection with the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25