Mangal Soy Vs State of Odisha

Instant petition under Section 483 BNSS is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with C.T.(S) Case No.232 of 2024 pending in the file of learned ADJ, Talcher corresponding to Khamar P.S. Case No.183 of 2024 on the grounds stated.

¶18

Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1 and rejection order as at Annexure-3.

¶19

Gone through the contents of the FIR i.e. Annexure-1. In fact, the report was lodged by the informant on 28^th August, 2024 in respect of an incident dated 14^th July, 2024. The informant is the wife of the deceased and she said to have lodged the FIR with the allegation that her husband was pushed from over a bridge by the petitioner, under whom, he was working as a helper. In that connection and upon registration of Khamar P.S. Case No.183, the

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

petitioner was arrested and he is custody from 5^th September, 2025. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a UD case was registered due to the incidental fall and death of the deceased but thereafter, the FIR was lodged which is nearly after a month and 15 days. It is submitted that the deceased was unconscious as made to appear from the FIR itself and hence, could not reveal the name of petitioner or anyone else involved but after the allegation of assault and upon lodging of a report with such allegation, the petitioner has been implicated. A copy of the final report in UD Case No.1913 of 2024 is made available to the Court along with inquest report. Referring to the said inquest report, it is claimed that the death was on account of fall of the deceased which was reported by the informant herself. Mr. Satpathy, learned ASC for the State submits that the deceased informed the family members about the alleged incident after all of them arrived at the spot. If such was the revelation made by the deceased at the spot itself, it is not known as to why the FIR was lodged after one and half months. If a disclosure was made by the deceased alleging the involvement of the petitioner to the informant and others present near the spot, it is quite unusual not to lodge the FIR immediately thereafter. However without casting any aspiration vis-à-vis conduct of the informant and others, for that matter and taking cognizance of the fact that the UD case was registered after the death of the deceased with the claim that he had an accidental fall from a bridge and almost after one and half months, the FIR was lodged with such allegation, the Court is of the view that the petitioner, who is in custody form 5^th September, 2024, should be allowed to go on bail all the more when the chargesheet is filed in the month of December, 2024.

¶22

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

In the result, the petition under Section 483 BNSS stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.T.(S) Case No.232 of 2024 arising out of Khamar P.S. Case No.183 of 2024 subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned ADJ, Talcher, who shall impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper and in the facts and circumstances of the case besides the following, such as, he shall not cause any harm to the informant and her other family members in any manner, whatsoever, after being released.

¶25