Orissa High Court
Sweta Devi vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 3 July, 2023
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.5151 of 2023
Sweta Devi .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
03.07.2023 Order No.
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in C.T.(SS) No.73/23 pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge(Vigilance), Dhenkanal, arising out of Kantabania P.S. Case No.120 of 2022 for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the IPC read with Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her application for bail U/s. 439 Cr.P.C by the learned A.D.J.-cum-Special Judge(Vigilance), Dhenkanal by order dated 20.04.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2022 and as charge sheet has already been filed on 19.03.2023, her further continuance in custody is unwarranted.
Page 1 of 35. It is stated by the learned counsel with vehemence that the only material against the petitioner is the statement of the co- accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and even if the same is treated as a disclosure statement, the only incriminating material is that the petitioner had a relationship with the co-accused Rahul Kumar and since the husband was a stumbling block, they connived along with another co-accused to kill her husband.
6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and painstakingly places the statement recorded under Section 27 of the co-accused Rahul Kumar who is the paramour of the present accused.
7. This Court carefully examined the materials on record, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not been able to place on record any other material other than the co-accused statement of Rahul Kumar and the same being one recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the limited extent to which such statement can be put to use being no longer res integra , this Court is persuaded to direct the petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin keeping in view that she is a lady.
8. Taking into account that the petitioner does not reside within the jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin, it is directed that in addition to the sureties so fixed, one surety shall be immediate member of the family of the petitioner, who shall execute a P.R. bond.
9. It is further directed that the petitioner shall appear once every three months before her native police station and report to the said effect shall be submitted to the learned Court in seisin, by the petitioner.
Page 2 of 310. While releasing the petitioner on bail, learned Court below shall verify assertion regarding the criminal antecedent of the Petitioner. If it comes to fore that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of any nature, this order shall stand recalled.
11. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Ayesha Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYESHA ROUT
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Jul-2023 17:43:00
Page 3 of 3