Back
Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Torching Four Vehicles In Cuttack
In a significant order, the at Cuttack has granted bail to a woman accused of causing severe property damage near the High Court premises. Justice G. Satapathy presided over the matter, weighing the gravity of the allegations against procedural protections afforded to female defendants under the .
Case Background
The petitioner, Minati Sahoo, had been in custody since , following an incident where she allegedly threw a petrol-filled bottle at vehicles parked near the boundary wall of the High Court. The act resulted in fire damage to four vehicles. Consequently, she was charged under various sections of the , including offences related to mischief and explosives, as well as provisions of the .
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused, who carries a history of psychiatric struggles, was not in control of her actions during the incident. Focusing on the welfare of her five-year-old child, the defense invoked the , which provides specific considerations for women in custody.
The state prosecutor and the victim’s counsel, including a lawyer who was present during the proceedings, vehemently opposed the bail. They argued that the severity of the offense and the potential danger of the petitioner repeating such acts warranted a continued custodial trial.
Legal Analysis and Reasoning
The High Court emphasized that while the allegations are serious—potentially punishable with life imprisonment—the bench had to balance these against the fundamental principle of the . Justice Satapathy noted that the investigation had already concluded with the filing of a , and the petitioner had no similar criminal record. Following the legal mandate to treat cases involving female accused with statutory consideration under the BNSS, the Court concluded that detention was no longer necessary pending trial.
Key Observations
The judgment highlighted several points of law:
*
"The petitioner herself being a lady is also entitled to the benefit of
."
*
"There being no
of similar nature reported against the petitioner."
*
"The release of an accused being not to be equated with or considered for her
."
*
"There being inherent right ingrained on each accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial."
Court's Decision
The petition was allowed subject to a of ₹25,000 and the provision of one . The Court imposed strict conditions: the petitioner is prohibited from visiting the scene of the incident, must not influence witnesses, and is barred from engaging in similar illicit activities. The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing public safety with statutory protections for vulnerable populations, even in cases involving significant property destruction.
