Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 130 (ORI)

Parimal Biswas v. State of Odisha

2020-06-12

S.PUJAHARI

body2020
ORDER : S. Pujahari, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has filed this bail application for his release on bail. 2. The petitioner being in custody in G.R. Case No. 179 of 2019, arising out of M.V.79 P.S. Case No. 39 of 2019, pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Motu, has filed this petition for his release on bail. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 3. In the wake of the pandemic Covid-19, the case was taken up through Video Conferencing and I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State on 04.06.2020. 4. The allegation of the prosecution is that the deceased along with her husband was living in a hut near their field and also they were engaged in vending liquor. Their children were staying outside. The petitioner was regular visitor to their hut and he was also a tippler. The petitioner had developed extramarital relationship with the deceased. One day in the night, in absence of the husband of the deceased, who had been to Andhra Pradesh to eke-out his living as a labourer, the petitioner went to the hut of the deceased and took liquor, had physical relationship with her and then had a quarrel with the deceased. It is alleged that during course of such quarrel, when the deceased slapped to the petitioner, the petitioner stated to have cut her throat, for which the deceased died and the petitioner left the spot. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no credible evidence is there to show that the petitioner has caused the, death of the deceased. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence, that has been collected, i.e., the fact that the petitioner was a regular visitor to the hut of the deceased and had extramarital relationship with the deceased, coupled with the fact that pursuant to his confessional statement to police, his bloodstained 'T' shirt was recovered from the place of concealment. The confessional statement so made before the police being inadmissible in evidence, the rest of the incriminating materials do not form a complete chain to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged and, as such, considering the same, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail, more so when he has no chance of absconding and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail, was the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State, however, submits that a detailed documentation and appreciation of the incriminating materials collected during investigation being impermissible while considering the prayer for bail being the well settled position of law and the materials collected against the petitioner prima facie sufficient enough to connect him with the offence alleged and the manner in which he allegedly committed the offence alleged, he does not deserve to be released on bail, more particularly when the offence alleged against him is heinous and serious in nature and prescribes capital punishment on conviction. 7. There is no reproach that the Court while considering the prayer for bail should not enter into the arena of the appreciation of the incriminating materials collected and should not make a detailed documentation and appreciation of the same, but it is also well settled that while considering the prayer for bail, the Court is to see the circumstances in which the offence stated to have been committed, the nature of incriminating materials as well as the possibility of the petitioner absconding and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail and those are the necessary considerations for grant of bail. 8. Therefore, on consideration of the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature of accusation, character of incriminating materials, circumstances in which the offence stated to have been committed, coupled with the fact that investigation in this case has been completed and no credible material is there to show that the petitioner is likely to abscond and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for his release on bail. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by the Court in seisin over the matter on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper. 10. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by the Court in seisin over the matter on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper. 10. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of being allowed.