Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 235 (ORI)

BANU ALIAS PRAFULLA KUMAR JENA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2004-05-07

L.MOHAPATRA

body2004
JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Additional Standing Counsel. The Petitioner has been arrested in connection with Jagatsinghpur P.S. No. 227 of 2000 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2001 pending in the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur for commission of offence u/s 302 of the Penal Code. The prosecution case as revealed from the record is that one Manjulata Jena had married one Manasranjan Jena in the year 1990. One year after in marriage, a child was born to them and since the husband of Manjulata Jena was not earning, the father-in law Bichitrananda Jena was looking after the family. It is alleged by the said Manjulata that during absence of her husband, her father-in-law Bichitrananda Jena was forcibly keeping physical relationship with her. When they were caught by the mother-in-law, there was quarrel between Bichitrananda Jena and his wife (mother-in-law of Manjulata). The further case of the prosecution is that the father in-law of Manjulata namely, Bichitrananda Jena along with the present Petitioner planned to kill the deceased and some days after, the dead body of the deceased was found with several injuries on her body. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence and the entire case based on circumstantial evidence. According to the Learned Counsel, even if the materials available on record are accepted, the Petitioner stands in the same footing as that of Bichitrananda Jena and the said Bichitrananda Jena having been granted bail, there is no reason to keep the Petitioner in custody. It was further contended by the Learned Counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 2000 and the trial has been stayed by this Court as a result of which there is no hope of the trial being concluded early and on that ground also the Court may consider for grant of bail to the Petitioner. I have perused the record carefully. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. As revealed from the record, the only material available against the Petitioner is that his statement was recorded by the police as well as the statement leading to recovery of half burnt pant and shirt and electric bulb. I have perused the record carefully. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. As revealed from the record, the only material available against the Petitioner is that his statement was recorded by the police as well as the statement leading to recovery of half burnt pant and shirt and electric bulb. Even if the statement of the Petitioner recorded during investigation is accepted, it appears that not only the Petitioner but also Bichitrananda Jena are equally liable for commission of offence. 3. There is no dispute that Bichitrananda Jena has been granted bail and the Petitioner is in custody since about four years by now. In view of such circumstances, I am of the view that the Petitioner should also be granted bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2001 on such terms and conditions as he may deem just and proper. 4. The BLAPL is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of the order be-granted on proper application.