Dismissed¶24

Jitendra Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 May 2025BLAPL/3429/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BLAPL No.3429 of 2025; Jitendra Behera v. State of Odisha; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Dr. S.K. Panigrahi; bail application dismissed 07.05.2025; Umerkote P.S. Case No.79 of 2023; C.T. Case No.121 of 2023; Additional Sessions Judge Umerkote; Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 506, 354-B, 109, 34 IPC; Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Sections 67 and 67(A) Information Technology Act; dowry torture after marriage; second marriage; videograph of private moments circulated on social media; throttling staged as suicide; custody since 09.04.2023; investigation completed; charge sheet filed; omnibus allegations; no specific overt act; nature and gravity of offence; bail refused.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for release on bail was refused. ¶24

Jitendra Behera Vs State of Odisha — Dowry and Cruelty | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3429 of 2025

¶2

Jitendra Behera

¶3

..…... Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Tukuna Kumar Mishra, Adv.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

07.05.2025

Order No.

F.I.R No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
79	08.04.2023	Umerkote	C.T. Case No.121 of 2023 pending in the Court of	U/s. 498-A/304- B/306/506/354-B/l 09/34 IPC read with Section 4 of
			learned	D.P. Act, and
			Additional	section 67 &
			Sessions Judge, Umerkote	67(A) of Information TechnologyAct

¶14

1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.

¶15

2. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Umerkote P.S. Case No.79 of 2023, C.T. Case No.121 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

¶16

¶17

Umerkote for the alleged commission of offences under Section 498-A/304-B/306/506/354-B/l 09/34 IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act, and section 67 & 67(A) of Information Technology Act, has filed this petition seeking release on bail.

¶18

3. The brief fact of the case is that after marriage of their daughter, the petitioner and his family members started tortured to the deceased both physically and mentally. The petitioner married for second time, after that he used to torture to the deceased and circulating the videograph of their private moments in the social media. The deceased protested the activities of the petitioner, consequently the petitioner and family members throttled the deceased to death and colored it as a case of suicide.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegation leveled against the Petitioner are omnibus in nature and there is no specific overt act attributed by the petitioner to implicate him in the alleged commission of offenses, only in a mechanical manner and the petitioner dragged into the instant case by the investigating agency. He further submits that the Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 09.04.2023 and in the meantime, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has already been filed. In view of all these above, he

¶20

¶21

urges that further detention of the Petitioner in custody would serve no useful purpose.

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the Petitioner and his relatives repeatedly tortured the deceased seeking more dowry. He also submits that the Petitioner video graphed the private moments of the deceased and thereafter circulated the said in the social media. He submits that the allegation against the Petitioner is grievous in nature, for which he should not be released on.

¶23

6. Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials as placed, further keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence for which the Petitioner is said to have been involved, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail.

¶24

7. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed.

¶25

8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

¶26

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶27

Gitanjali Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2025 17:06:30

¶29