Allowed

Jayanti Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Jan 2025BLAPL/4971/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to petitioners Jayanti Jena and Ranjan Jena under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a dowry death case. The court allowed bail subject to furnishing bonds despite prosecution allegations due to lack of specific evidence regarding dowry demand and incidence of suicide.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to release petitioners on bail via bonds of Rs. 40,000 each with one solvent surety.

Jayanti Jena Vs State of Odisha — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.4971 of 2024

¶3

Jayanti Jena …. Petitioner Ms. S. Das on behalf of Mr. A.K. Panda, Advocate -VersusState of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Mohanty, AGA And BLAPL No.4972 of 2024 Ranjan Jena …. Petitioner Ms. S. Das on behalf of Mr. A.K. Panda, Advocate -VersusState of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Mohanty, AGA Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate, (informant)

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

07.01.2025

Order No. 06.

Both the bail petitions since arise out of Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No.744 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.73 of 2024 (G.R. Case No.729 of 2023), the same are disposed of by the following common order.

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

Heard Ms. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State.

¶12

Instant petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are filed for release of the petitioners on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.73 of 2024 (arising out of G.R. Case No.729 of 2023) pending in the file of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodala, Ganjam corresponding to Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No.744 of 2023 on the grounds stated therein.

¶13

Ms. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a case under Section 302 IPC is not made out in respect of the petitioners, who have been chargesheeted for the offence under Section(s) 304-B and 306 IPC besides Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act apart from Section 498-A IPC. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of demand, as revealed from the materials on record and as far as the accused husband is concerned, he was in good terms with the deceased. It is further submitted that trial is commenced and in the meantime, five witnesses have been examined from the side of the prosecution. Considering the nature of allegations and in absence of specific instances of dowry demand alleged, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners should be allowed to go on bail.

¶14

Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the informant submits that though the accused persons are involved, so far as accused husband is concerned, he was primarily responsible for the death of the deceased as it is revealed that some time before the incident, the accused husband assaulted the deceased demanding Rs.1,00,000/(one lakh), hence, claimed that the said accused should not be enlarged at all.

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

Such release of the accused persons is objected to by Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State and he refers to the forwarding report and the chargesheet since it prima facie proved the involvement of both the petitioners in the alleged incident.

¶17

Perused the chargesheet, a copy of which is made available to the Court and other relevant documents including the postmortem report, which reveals the death of the deceased on account of combined effect of Asphyxia and venous congestion. It is not disputed that the deceased died committing suicide. As far as the allegations are concerned, the accused husband alleged ill-treated the deceased. The other accused, namely, the mother-in-law stated to have sided with the husband and ill-treated the deceased. The death of the deceased has taken place within three years after the marriage. Though, from the chargesheet, it is made to understand that a demand of one lakh was made by the accused husband, but considering the statements of the informant and other witnesses about ill-treatment alleged by them and the death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage, hence, the petitioners to have been chargesheeted under Section 304-B IPC and having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, in absence of specific evidence with regard to demand of dowry and torture, this Court is of the view that the accused persons, who are in custody since the date of arrest should be allowed to go on bail subject to following conditions.

¶18

Hence, it is ordered.

¶19

In the result, petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stand allowed. Consequently, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.73 of 2024 (arising out of G.R. Case No.729 of 2023) corresponding to Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No.744 of 2023 subject to them furnishing bail bonds of

¶20

Page 3 of 4

¶21

Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodala, Ganjam, who shall be at liberty to impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances.

¶22

BLAPLs stand disposed of.

¶23

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶24

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶25

Alok

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: Asst. Registrar-Cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 08-Jan-2025 17:31:41

¶28

Page 4 of 4

Jayanti Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanti Jena 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

Baruna @ Basanta Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Ramkumar Singh Vs State of Odisha

Sukura @ Sikra Munda Vs State of Odisha

Manas Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Amitav Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Kishan Majhi@Banti Vs State of Odisha