Ramakanta Sahu v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No. 156 of 2022 Ramakanta Sahu ....

Petitioner Mr. A.C. Mohanty, Advocate - Versus - State of Orissa ....

Opposite Party Mr. P. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

28.06.2022 1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Order No.

03.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

3.

The petitioner is in custody since 24.10.2021 in connection with Kuakhia P.S. Case No.359 of 2021 corresponding to C.T. Case No.2235 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 498(A)/302/304-B/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act.

4.

The petitioner is the husband of the deceased, who is said to have been killed by the petitioner and his family members. It appears from the case record that the marriage was solemnized on 26.02.2020 and a child was also born to the couple in July, 2021. In October, 2021, the husband (petitioner) informed the family members of the deceased over phone that their daughter had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and set herself on fire by locking the door of her room from inside. There are some materials in the form of statement of the mother of the deceased and other witnesses alleging that the

petitioner and his family members used to treat the deceased with cruelty by passing derogatory remarks.

5.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all other co-accused persons have been released on bail. 6.

Considering the fact that a child was born to the deceased and there is also material to show that she was treated with cruelty prior to the occurrence, prima facie, it can be held that there was sufficient instigation at least on the part of her husband which led her to commit suicide.

7.

Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to allow the prayer for bail, which is therefore, rejected. It is open to the petitioner to renew his prayer after examination of the material witnesses in the case including the informant. 8.

Learned court below is also directed to expedite the trial. 9.

BLAPL is accordingly rejected.

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge A.K. Rana