Orissa High Court
Laxman Sethi vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 15 September, 2021
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2205 of 2021
1. Laxman Sethi
2. Nila Sethi .... Petitioners
Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr. A.K. Beura
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 15.09.2021
04. This matter is taken up through video conferencing Mode.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case has already been committed to the Court of Session but he has not provided the number.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.14 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.81 of 2021 in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur for alleged commission of offences under sections 498- A/294/323/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners moved an application for bail // 2 // before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam, which was rejected on 10.03.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are patents-in-law of the deceased Mamata Sethi and they are in judicial custody since 08.02.2021 and they have been charge sheeted under sections 498-A/294/323/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the marriage between the deceased and the son of the petitioners, namely, Bhagaban Sethi was solemnized in the year 2010 and they were blessed with a daughter, who was aged about nine years and a son, who was aged about five years at the time of occurrence and the occurrence in question took place on 05.02.2021. He further submitted that over the issue of cat eating fishes, a domestic quarrel ensued between the parties for which the deceased jumped into the well, which is situated in the courtyard, as a result of which, she died on account of drowning and therefore, in view of the available materials on record, it cannot be said that the petitioners abetted the commission of suicide and thus, the bail application may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed the statement of one Judhistir Sethi, who is the co- villager of the petitioners and he stated as to how the deceased jumped into the well and subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from it.
Page 2 of 4// 3 // Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and placed the statement of the husband of the deceased, namely, Bhagaban Sethi and he specifically stated that in his absence, the petitioners were torturing the deceased both physically and mentally, which was informed to him by the deceased and on the date of occurrence, she was also assaulted by the petitioners. He further placed the post mortem report, which indicates that the deceased had sustained lacerated wound over the left parietal area of head, one contusion on the left hand close to the wrist joint and an abrasion over right knee area and there was a fracture on the skull and the external injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature caused shortly before death and bone marrow from sternum of the deceased was collected for diatom test and comparison with sample water supplied by the Investigating Officer from the spot and the post mortem report further indicates that the external injury no.1 and the corresponding internal injuries to the head are sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature, however, asphyxia from drowning is a contributory to the cause of death.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature and gravity of the accusation against the petitioners, the surrounding circumstances under which the deceased was assaulted by the petitioners for which she Page 3 of 4 // 4 // jumped into the well and the statement of the son of the petitioners and the post mortem report findings, at this stage, while not inclining to release the petitioners on bail, but taking into account the period of detention of the petitioners in judicial custody, I direct the learned trial Court to expedite framing of charge and at the first instance, examine the material witnesses. The petitioners are at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after examination of the material witnesses in the trial Court.
The BLAPL is disposed of accordingly. A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court for compliance.
Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge Jagabandhu Page 4 of 4