ORISSA HIGH COURT
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Dipak Bhutia —Petitioner
versus
State of Odisha —Opp. Party
BLAPL No.5701 of 2020
Decided on 5.2.2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 439—Bail application—Petitioner is accused in connection with alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 307, 506, 34 of I.P.C.—Investigation is still going on—Offences under Indian Penal Code, are prima facie definitely made out, though it requires thorough trial—In FIR and charge-sheet filed in present case there are very specific allegations against each of family members of petitioner who are arrayed as accused—It is not as if are casual and sweeping against all accused generally—While it is true that even distant relatives of husband have been roped in, this must be viewed in context of the fact that extended family does live in villages and prevalent social milieu and setting does facilitate their constant interaction—Allegations are specific qua each of them—Length of detention of petitioner is not a ground for release him on bail in this kind of offence which shakes social fabrics—Even allegation of psychological illness of complainant-victim does not give petitioner and his family members handle to treat her like slave bereft of any mercy and human compassion—Court not inclined to enlarge petitioner on bail— Bail Application dismissed. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)
Result: Bail Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Panigrahi, J.—The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 439 of CrPC seeking bail in connection with Dhenkanal Tumusingha P.S. Case No.77 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 316 of 2020 pending before the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar. The petitioner herein is the accused in connection with the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 307, 506, 34 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant got married to the present petitioner on 20.02.2015 as per cast and customary practices. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s father had given Rs.5 lakhs and gold ornaments of about 200 gms. (20 bhari) and other household items in the form of dowry. After two years of marriage, she was subjected to cruelty seeking demand for more dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and threatened to burn her alive in case of refusal of the same. The village gentry have tried to resolve the dispute between them on many occasions.
3. Pursuant to consistent demand and cruelty meted out to the daughter, the complainant’s father has given further Rs. 2-4 lakhs over a few instalments. The complainant has also emphasised that the matter has been resolved in the Tumusingha P.S. wherein the petitioner and his family members have admitted their fault and has promised not to repeat similar mistake again in future.
4. It is further alleged that on 06.06.2020 at about 11 P.M. the petitioner along with mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant-victim abused her and assaulted with her with a sharp wood threatening to take her life. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law applied ‘baidanka’ (plant with poisonous spores) to her private part which is heinous and inhuman. Subsequently, the petitioner poured kerosene on her and set her to fire. However, she threw the burning apparels and filed from the spot and somehow saved herself. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR in the Tumusingha Police Station.
5. Heard Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Miss. Rajalaxmi Biswal, learned counsel for the Informant and perused the case records.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nayak, has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The allegations as set out in the FIR are omnibus in nature and there is absolutely no allegation of any specific overt act against the present petitioner. Further, on perusal of the FIR and the statement of the victim, it can be seen that both are contradictory and apart from that offence under Section 307 of I.P.C may not be made out against the petitioner, as no injury in the vital parts of the body of the victim and all the injuries including burn injury are simple in nature. Apart from that, though there is allegation of setting fire to her body by pouring kerosene, but no burnt clothes are seized by the Police and thus the FIR is concocted. Further, the learned counsel has alleged that the complainant is a psychiatric patient, which was mentioned when the village gentlemen settled a dispute with a condition that she will go to a doctor for treatment. Therefore, the allegations in the FIR are completely false and fabricated. Hence, the petitioner may be granted bail.
7. The Investigating Officer has submitted the Case Diary along with the injury report of the complainant. The injury report shows:
i. Burn injury of size 1, burn 2x1 cm2, right snuff box area dorsal thumb, caused by fire.
ii. Incision- 1x 0.1 x 0.1 cm 3-left thumb ventral region-simple, caused by knife.
iii. Trauma and pain over right upper deltoid region and right zygomatic region due to hit by blunt object -nature of injury-simple.
iv. Inching wound of snuffle size on perineal region due to application of poisonous spore.
The injury report further fortifies the all
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.