Bail applications must consider the seriousness of allegations and prima facie evidence; in cases involving potential murder, bail should not be granted if prima facie evidence indicates substantial involvement.

Judgment :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an application U/S.483 of BNS S by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Keonjha Town PS Case No.974 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.2184 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Keonjhar being charge sheeted for commission of offence punishable U/S.108 of the .

2. The present case against the Petitioner arises out of an FIR in which it is alleged against the Petitioner for remaining with the deceased in a relationship and on the relevant date, the informant received a phone call from one Mobile No. 700892252 stating himself to be Lecturer of the College of the deceased to inform him that the deceased had suddenly fallen down and shifted to DHH, Keonjhar. Accordingly, the informant who is the uncle of the deceased rushed to the Hospital only to find the dead body of the deceased with cut mark at neck. It is alleged that the Petitioner had committed murder of the deceased as he was threatening to kill the deceased.

On this incident, FIR was lodged and basing on such FIR, Keonjhar Town PS Case No. 974 of 2025 was registered and the Petitioner was forwarded to the Court for commission of offence punishable offence U/S. 103 of BNS , but subsequently, after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Petitioner for commission of offence U/S. 108 of .

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Ms. Anwesha Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a lawyer, but he has been falsely implicated in this case and even if the materials are taken into consideration, since the Petitioner has been charge sheeted for 108 of BNS , but he having not abetted commission of suicide, the Petitioner can be considered for grant of bail. Mr. Nayak further submits that since the investigation has been completed awaiting trial, it is for the Court to decide as to whether the Petitioner would be released on bail or he would be kept in confinement till conclusion of trial. It is also submitted by Mr. Nayak that bail being the rule, the Petitioner should not be detained in custody and bail should not be withheld to him as a pre trial punishment. Mr.Nayak further submits that although the Petitioner and the deceased were staying together in a live-in relationship, but the commission of suicide by the deceased is beyond the knowledge and control of the Petitioner and thereby, the Petitioner being an innocent lawyer, he should not be detained further in custody. Mr. Nayak further by relying upon the decision in Prakash and others Vrs. State of Maharashtra and another ; 2024 INSC 1020 submits that the Petitioner in this case has neither any intention to instigate nor aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide, but the Investigating Agency has failed to reveal any prima facie case against the Petitioner for commission of offence U/S. 108 of and, therefore, the further detention of the Petitioner in custody is unwarranted and the Apex Court in similar circumstance has quashed the charge framed against the appellant in relied on case. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Nayak prays to grant bail to the Petitioner.

3.1. On the contrary, Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel for the informant submits that not only the Petitioner is prima facie involved in this case, but also the deceased had sustained around eight injuries on her person and the Petitioner being the author of such injuries, the Petitioner should not be extended with any leniency in the form of bail. Mr. Mohanty accordingly, by inviting attention of the Court to the PM report prays to reject the bail application of the Petitioner.

3.2. In the same fashion, Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. PP by drawing attention of the Court to the statement of the infor