Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 487 (ORI)

Kanakalata Jaiswal v. State of Orissa

2015-08-18

S.K.MISHRA

body2015
ORDER 18.08.2015 Since all the above four bail applications arise out of one case, these cases were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. 2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Government Advocate. 3.All the petitioners are apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 306/34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Parlakehmundi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. case NO. 236 of 2015 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi. 4.Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.05.2015 one Shivam Charan lodged an F.I.R. before the I.I.C., Parlakhemundi P.S. in the district of Gajapati alleging, inter alia, that his sister SanchiJaiswal (Sanchi) was given in marriage to the petitioner Preetam Kumar on 16.02.2015. On 24.05.2015 at about 1.20P.M., the father-in-law of the deceased namely Shiva Prasad Jaiswal called from his mobile number and informed the uncle (Mousa) of the deceased that the deceased has committed suicide and they should rush to Parlakhemundi. Then the informant and others came to Parlakhemundi and found that the deceased has died and postmortem has been conducted. It is further stated by the informant that at the time of marriage Rs. 25,00,000/- has been expended in different ways including the dowry. On registration of the case, the Investigating Officer took up investigation of the case and in course of investigation; he seized a Diary maintained by the petitioner Preetam Kumar. From the said Diary it is apparent that his wife was being tortured by Kanakalata Jaiswal, his mother, and the petitioner Preetam was a silent spectator to the same. In his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., the informant has stated that the petitioner Kanakalata was demanding Rs. 50,000/- which was expended in honeymoon trip of the deceased and her husband. The statement of the maid, who was working in the house of the Jaiswal family Sangita Pradhan, reveals that Kanaklaata Jaiswal was always scolding the deceased and was demanding Rs. 2.00 lakhs more as dowry. 5. A careful examination of the entire record reveals that there is no specific allegation against any other petitioners. Admittedly, the death took place within a few months of the marriage of the petitioner Preetam Jaiswal with the deceased. 2.00 lakhs more as dowry. 5. A careful examination of the entire record reveals that there is no specific allegation against any other petitioners. Admittedly, the death took place within a few months of the marriage of the petitioner Preetam Jaiswal with the deceased. There was demand for dowry by his mother and even during the torture, the petitioner Preetam was remaining as silent spectator. 6.Keeping in view all aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail should be granted to Prasant Jaiswal, petitioner in ABLAPL No. 8105 of 2015 and Siva Prasad Jaiswal, petitioner in ABLAPL No. 8218 of 2015 and the bail applications of Kanakalata Jaiswal, petitioner in ABLAPL No. 8375 of 2015 and Preetam Jaiswal, petitioner in ABLAPL No. 8191 of 2015 should be rejected. 7.Accordingly, bail applications of Kanakalata Jaiswal, petitioner in ABLAPL No. 8375 of 2015 and Preetam Jaiswal, petitioner in ABLAPL No. 8191 of 2015 are rejected. So far as the bail applications of Prasant Jaiswal in ABLAPL 8105 of 2015 and Siva Prasad Jaiswal in ABLAPL No. 8218 of 2015 are allowed. They are given liberty to surrender before the learned S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi within 21 days in connection with the aforesaid case and apply for bail. In such event, the learned Magistrate shall release them on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by him. 8. It is further directed that on the event the petitioners are arrested in the meantime, the Arresting Officer shall produce them before the learned S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi within 24 hours and the learned Magistrate shall grant them bail as directed above. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Ordered accordingly.