The presumption of innocence is paramount; a negative viscera report does not automatically negate the possibility of abetment of suicide and dowry death charges, highlighting the need for a thorough evidential examination.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Bonai PS Case No. 200 of 2023 corresponding to GR Case No. 854 of 2023 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Bonai, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.304(B)/306/406/34 of IPC read with Sec. 4 of DP Act on the allegation of committing dowry death and abetment of suicide of his wife by subjecting her to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry as well as misappropriating dowry articles along with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr.Kaustava Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the deceased stated to have consumed poison on 11.11.2023, but she informed the same to her mother-in-law only on 14.11.2023, however, she was initially being treated at home by the petitioner and his family members, when the deceased started vomiting on 11.11.2023 at about 11.30 PM and when the deceased disclosed to have taken poison, she was immediately shifted to Bonai Garh Medical on 14.11.2023 by her in laws and thereafter, she was taken back by her parents, who got her treated at Rourkela by one Medicine Specialist namely Soraj Rath, but on 20.11.2023 morning, she was admitted at CWS, which referred her to IGH, Rourkela, where she was admitted and treated there, but on 24.11.2023 she being referred by IGH, Rourkela was again shifted to AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where she ultimately succumbed on 01.12.2023 and thereafter, on 04.12.2023, the FIR was registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted by Mr.Dhal that not only the viscera report does not reveal any poisonous substance in the viscera of the deceased, but also there is no prima facie material to implicate the present petitioner for commission either offence U/S. 304-B or 306 of the IPC because the entire materials available on record does not disclose about subjecting the deceased to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry soon before her death, rather on knowing about the deceased vomiting, the petitioner and his family members had provided treatment to her in their house and hospital at Bonaigarh, but subsequently, after arrival of the informant, she was immediately shifted to Rourkela where the deceased underwent treatment, but when the health condition of the deceased deteriorated, she was shifted to Bhubaneswar for better treatment, however, the deceased could not survive even after getting treatment which includes specialized treatment for around twenty days. Mr.Dhal submits that in the circumstance, especially when there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner who having been detained in custody for near about more than seven months in custody and charge sheet having already been placed, there is no need for further detention of the petitioner in custody and the petitioner, therefore, may kindly granted bail on any condition.

2.1. On the other hand, Mr.Amitav Pradhan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer of the petitioner for bail submits that not only the deceased was taken to hospital by the informant, but also due to his stress on account of providing treatment to the deceased, the FIR could not promptly be lodged, but mere delay in lodging of FIR would not wash off the allegations leveled against the petitioner for subjecting the deceased to torture and cruelty forcing her to consume poison which is prima facie found out from the materials on record and the deceased having died otherwise than normal circumstance within 07 years of her marriage and her death being relate