Orissa High Court
Muna @ Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Odisha ... Opp.Party on 14 October, 2020
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
BLAPL No. 2378 of 2020
MUNA @ RAKESH KUMAR ... PETITIONER
PANDA
-VERSUS-
STATE OF ODISHA ... OPP.PARTY
05. 14.10.2020 The matter is taken up through Video
Conferencing.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State
This is an application under section 439 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection
with Khandagiri P.S. Case No. 465 of 2017 corresponding
to Crl. T.R. No.34 of 2018 pending in the Court of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for alleged
commission of offences under sections 498-A, 304-B,
302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the D.P.
Act.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been
rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar by order dated 10.02.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.10.2017 and
he has been charge-sheeted under sections 498-A, 304-
B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the D.P.
Act. He further submitted that the petitioner and the
deceased Laxmi Panda @ Mama were in love with each
other and the deceased eloped with the petitioner and
then in presence of both the family members, they got
married in a temple, which was two years prior to the
date of occurrence. It is further submitted that there is
absolutely no material relating to the involvement of the
petitioner in a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and rather the materials indicate that the petitioner
accompanied the deceased to the hospital when she
sustained burn injuries and therefore, the bail application
of the petitioner may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
placed the statements of the neighbours, who have
implicated the petitioner in the alleged crime. He further
submitted that the materials on record further indicate
that the petitioner was taking liquor and demanding
dowry and torturing the deceased and on the date of
occurrence i.e. 16.10.2017, there was a quarrel between
the husband and the wife and the neighbours saw smoke
coming out of the house of the petitioner and they found
that the petitioner and the deceased were present and
the petitioner also made extra judicial confession before
them that he set fire to the deceased.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
two witnesses have been examined so far in the trial
Court and they have not supported the prosecution case.
Be that as it may, since it is a case of bride
burning, in view of the materials available on record and
the nature and gravity of accusation, I am not inclined to
release the petitioner on bail.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail after examination of the material
witnesses in the trial Court. The learned trial Court shall
make every endeavour to expedite the trial and steps
shall be taken to examine the material witnesses first.
The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
PKSahoo