IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

ABLAPL No. 4919 of 2021

Prahalad Chandra Samal and

another

&.

Petitioners

Mr. Parsuram Panda, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha

&.

Opposite Party

Mr. M. K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM:

JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.

ORDER

22.04.2021

02.

1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the State.

3. Petitioners apprehending their arrest in Ambadola PS

UD Case No. 2 of 2021 for the alleged commission of

offence punishable under Section 506/34 of the IPC,

have filed this petition for their release on anticipatory

bail.

4. Perused the allegation made in the FIR.

5. The brief fact of the case in nutshell is that the

present petitioners are the husband and the wife. They

are adopted parents of one Jyoti Prakash Samal. On

09.04.2021 at about 2:30 PM, petitioners9 adopted minor

kid defecated on the floor. Petitioner No. 1, his father

took his minor kid to the bathroom for cleaning, but all

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

of a sudden, both the father and his kid fell down in the

bathroom. The kid of the petitioner No. 1 became

senseless. Petitioner No. 1 took his kid to the nearest Life

Line

Private

Hospital

and

oxygen

was

supplied.

Thereafter on the advice of the doctor, his kid was also

referred to Ambadola Govt. Hospital (GH) for treatment

but after examination, his kid was declared dead.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

present petitioners were issueless and they adopted a

child from one Self Realisation Mission, Keonjhar. He

further submitted that some unsocial persons and media

instigated the police to arrest the petitioners alleging that

petitioners might have tortured their adopted son and

murdered the innocent kid.

7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently objected the

anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

8. On consideration of the allegations made in the F.I.R.

and also the submissions made, especially the nature

and character of allegations, circumstances in which the

offences stated to have been committed, punishment

provided on conviction of the major offence alleged and

also it is not disputed that the petitioners9 release on

anticipatory bail shall not be a hindrance to a free and

fair investigation. This Court is of the view that the

petitioners have made out a case for their release on

anticipatory bail, more particularly when they are ready

and willing to co-operate with the investigation and they

have no chance of absconding and/or tampering with the

prosecution evidence, if released on anticipatory bail.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

9. Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of

the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case,

they be released on bail by the Officer effecting arrest on

some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and

proper.

10. However, the aforesaid order is subject to the

condition that the petitioners shall co-operate with the

investigation and no other graver offence is reported

against the petitioners besides the aforesaid offences.

11. The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being

allowed.

12. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are

continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a

soft copy of this order available in the High Court9s

website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in

the manner prescribed, vide Court9s Notice No.4587,

dated 25th March 2020.

(S. K. Panigrahi)

Judge

AKP