AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Kujang PS Case No. 258 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No. 114 of 2025 (GR Case No.640 of 2025) pending in the file of learned JMFC(P), Kujang, for being charge sheeted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 85/108/103(1)/316(2)/3(5) of BNS, on the main allegation of committing murder of his wife by subjecting her to torture and cruelty and for dishonestly misappropriating the dowry articles, along with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.
In the course of hearing, Mr.Debasnan Das, learned counsel for the petitioner by filing the copy of the order passed in ABLAPL No. 771 of 2026 & BLAPL NO. 12371 of 2025 submits that co-accused parents-in-law and brother-in-law have already been admitted to bail, but the petitioner-cum-husband was never present at the scene of occurrence and at best, his role is limited/confined to instigating the co-accused to commit the crime, however, such co-accused persons have already been admitted to bail and thereby, the present petitioner-cum-husband may kindly be granted bail.
In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner, Mr. Gokulananda Parida, learned counsel for the informant submits that not only the petitioner has instigated the co-accused to commit the murder of the deceased, but also he is instrumental in such act, however, he could not dispute about the grant of bail to co-accused persons in this case. Further, Mr.Parida by placing the facts on record, prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.
On the other hand, Mr.R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. PP by placing the statement of one neighbour of the deceased submits that the petitioner has got definite role in accomplishing the crime and thereby, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about grant of bail to co-accused parents-in-law and brother-in-law in ABLAPL No. 771 of 2026 and BLAPL No. 12371 of 2025, but Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the informant on being asked, is candid enough to apprise this Court that the informant has not challenged such orders in higher forum. Besides, it is also found from the record that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence, rather co-accused who were allegedly present at the scene of occurrence have already been granted bail. The main allegation is against the father-in-law for procuring the poison, which was later on found to have been the cause of death of the deceased. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and on consideration of materials placed on record, especially when the husband was not present at the scene of occurrence in the house at the relevant time and taking into account the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody with submission of charge sheet in the meantime and there being no material collected to suggest that the petitioner would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if released on bail, this Court without expressing any view on merits, admits the petitioner to bail.
Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.