Orissa High Court
Pinku @ Tapan Kumar Pradhan vs State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Party on 7 March, 2025
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 3090 of 2024
Pinku @ Tapan Kumar Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Mr.Pratik Nayak, Advocate
Vs.
State of Orissa ..... Opposite Party
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC
BLAPL No. 7173 of 2024
Subhash @ Sarat Chandra Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Mr. Pratik Nayak, Advocate
Vs.
State of Orissa ..... Opposite Party
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
07.03.2025 Order No. (Through hybrid mode)
05.
1. These applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners in connection with Sarankul P.S. Case No. 115 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 244 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Odagaon, Nayagarh S.T. Case No. 122 of 2023 where the petitioners are facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 304-B, 302, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
Page 1 of 6
2. Pinku @ Tapan Kumar Pradhan, petitioner in BLAPL No. 3090 of 20247 is the husband of the deceased. Subhash @ Sarat Chandra Pradhan, petitioner in BLAPL No. 7173 of 2024 is the father-in-law of the deceased.
3. BLAPL No. 11626 of 2023 filed by the petitioner-Subhash @ Sarat Chandra Pradhan (in BLAPL No. 7173 of 2024) had been dismissed by me on 17.10.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to move for bail afresh after completion of investigation.
4. The prayer for bail of the petitioners thereafter have been rejected vide order dated 15.03.2024 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Odagaon in S.T. Case No. 122 of 2023.
5. The prosecution allegations against the petitioners in brief are that the informant's daughter marriage had been solemnized with Pinku @ Tapan Kumar Pradhan, petitioner in BLAPL No. 7173 of 2024, two years ago and they had given sufficient dowry as per the demand of the son-in-law. They were blessed with one son who is aged about 1 year. After a few days of marriage, her husband and his family members consistently made demand for Rs.3,00,000/- or a car as dowry. As the demand was not met, the deceased was physically and mentally tortured, she had left her matrimonial house about eight months before her death, as she could not bear the torture. Three Page 2 of 6 months before the incident she had returned to her matrimonial house. On 12.05.2023, the informant went to the house of the petitioners on receiving information that she had expired. On reaching the house, found the petitioner lying dead in a bed. Post mortem examination report revealed that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia by strangulation and the same was homicidal in nature.
6. Mr. Pratik Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Pinku @ Tapan Kumar Pradhan, petitioner in BLAPL No. 3090 of 2024 is in custody since 28.07.2023 and Subhash @ Sarat Chandra Pradhan, petitioner in BLAPL No. 7173 of 2024 is in custody since 03.08.2023. He also submitted that the family members of the deceased have been examined in the trial and have not supported the prosecution case for which they have been declared hostile. P.Ws. 6 & 7 (parents of the deceased) have stated that because the deceased was chronically ill, she committed suicide and there was no demand for dowry from the petitioner or his family members. He has further submitted that the petitioners are in custody since more than one year and the important witnesses have been examined in the trial, the case is pending only for examination of the seizure witnesses and the I.O. and as the petitioners are Page 3 of 6 permanent residents of Nayagarh, there is no chance that they will abscond if they are released on bail, for which their prayer for bail may be sympathetically considered. In support of his submission, he has relied on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Vicky @ Vikas Dahiya vrs. State of Haryana in Cr.M. No. 17601 of 2021; Cr.M.M. No. 41582 of 2020.
7. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail stating that apart from the parents of the deceased, the neighbours namely, Sisir Mohapatra, Pramod Kumar Barik and Mamata Mohapatra have stated about the ill-treatment and torture meted out by the accused persons on the deceased, who died within 3 years of her marriage. He has further submitted that the nature of death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, and she was found dead in her matrimonial house. The petitioners were residing in the same house and should therefore not be released on bail.
8. In the report dated 02.09.2024 of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Odagaon, it has been stated that 11 witnesses out of 33 chargesheet witnesses have been examined, and the case was posted for examination of the seizure witnesses. Page 4 of 6
9. In the case of Vikas Dahiya (supra), the petitioner was in custody since more than six years, all the eye witnesses to the alleged incident had allegedly turned hostile and only seven witnesses had been examined in the trial.
10. In the present case, the parents of the deceased may not have supported the prosecution case so far as demand of dowry and ill treatment of the deceased is concerned and have stated that she committed suicide as she was chronically ill. But they are not the persons who have the expertise or the knowledge to speak about the cause of her death as they were not present in the house of the petitioners when the deceased was found dead. The deceased was found in her matrimonial house with marks of strangulation on her neck and cause of death as per the post mortem examination report is asphyxia due to strangulation which is homicidal in nature. Pinku @ Tapan Kumar Pradhan is the husband of the deceased. I am therefore not inclined to allow the prayer for bail of Pinku @ Tapan Kumar Pradhan.
11. Subhash @ Sarat Chandra Pradhan is the father-in-law of the deceased, so he stands on a different footing than his son Pinku @ Tapan Kumar Pradhan. He is in custody since more than sixteen months and is aged about 63 years. I am therefore inclined to allow Page 5 of 6 his prayer for bail.
12. In view of the above discussion, prayer for bail of Subhash @ Sarat Chandra Pradhan, petitioner in BLAPL No. 7173 of 2024, is allowed. The prayer for bail of Pinku @ Tapan Kumar Pradhan, petitioner in BLAPL No. 3090 of 2024 is rejected
13. Subhash @ Sarat Chandra Pradhan, petitioner in BLAPL No. 7173 of 2024 shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, including the following conditions:
(i) He will not threaten or try to influence prosecution witnesses while on bail.
(ii) He will remain present in the learned trial court on each date fixed for trial.
14. BLAPL No. 7173 of 2024 is allowed while BLAPL No. 3090 of 2024 is dismissed.
15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
Signature Not Verified (Savitri Ratho)
Digitally Signed Judge Signed by:puspa PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Mar-2025 14:21:31 Page 6 of 6