IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.7923 of 2023 Pradipta Das @ Kabu … Petitioner Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus-

State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. PP CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER(ORAL)

Order No. 07.05.2025

10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of CrPC by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Cuttack Sadar PS Case No.189 of 2021 corresponding to ST Case No.147 of 2021 pending in the file of learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC, on the allegation of committing uxoricide by subjecting his deceased wife to torture and cruelty.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there are allegedly two circumstances appearing against the petitioner; (i) homicidal death of the deceased and (ii) infidelity of the petitioner (her husband), but such circumstances appears to be inconsequential because the same have not been established in the evidence. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that some of the witnesses deposed against the petitioner about his involvement in this case due to non-payment/irregular payment of loan arranged by them for the petitioner. In addition, learned Senior Counsel has also taken the plea of long incarceration of the petitioner as one of the ground for release of the petitioner on bail.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that not only the circumstances are adverse against the petitioner, but also it gives rise to the involvement of the petitioner in the brutal murder of the deceased and apart from homicidal death of the deceased in the house of the petitioner, the petitioner has also given recovery of the knife pursuant to his disclosure statement and, thereby, the petitioner being prima facie found to be involved in a gruesome murder of his wife does not deserve to be released on bail. Accordingly, Mr. Pradhan prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for committing murder of his own wife. Besides, the dead body of the deceased with homicidal death was allegedly recovered from the house of the petitioner, which is of course claimed by the learned Senior Counsel to be a joint family house, but in addition, there is another alleged circumstance against the petitioner for giving recovery of the weapon of offence pursuant to his disclosure statement. The Post Mortem Report clearly discloses about the deceased sustaining around eight injuries with visceral matters coming out of the cavity of deep injuries.

5. In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and on going through the evidence of witnesses so far examined in this case, more particularly the evidence of the informant and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety including the mode, manner and circumstance under which the crime has been committed and the brutality that has been exhibited in committing the murder of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

6. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

(G. Satapathy)

Signature Not Ve rified Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMASLubhasmita Designat