Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY
Rudra Narayan Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
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
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 ....
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
The court upheld the principle that bail should not be denied as pre-trial punishment, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for careful assessment of potential flight risk and witnes....
The absence of direct evidence of instigation and significant delay in filing the FIR justified granting bail to the petitioner.
The court found no direct evidence of intention to instigate suicide, allowing bail as essential ingredients of abetment were absent.
Pushing a person causing fall and death from head injury does not prima facie constitute offence under Section 103(1) without attributable knowledge of likely death; bail granted as added sections ba....
Bail was granted due to lack of evidence against the petitioner despite serious allegations in a homicide case.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for abetment of suicide; clear evidence of incitement is required.
The court emphasized the necessity of a fair investigation and found insufficient evidence to deny bail, allowing the petitioner to be released under specific conditions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
