PURAKH CHAND CHANDAK AND Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners Purakh Chand Chandak and Rajendra Prasad Bharadia along with eight others have been charge-sheeted under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code in Chauliaganj P. S. Case No. 33 of 1993 which corresponds to G. R. Case No. 271 of 1993, pending in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. The said criminal case was instituted on the First Information Report lodged by Shri Bijoy Mohapatra on 17-2-93 at about 7.15 p.m. alleging, inter alia, that at about 7 p.m. when the was passing by the Central Flour Mill at Naya Bazarhe heard the cries of a woman from the mill premises. On reaching the place he heard that Smt. Bina Jhawar, daughter of Kali Prasad Bharadia has been attacked by Rohit Chandak, his employees and others and they had assaulted her, poured some liquid on her body and set fire to it. The informant further stated in the report that the incident took place near the Bakery situated within the flour mill premises and many persons had witnessed the occurrence. As the case diary reveals, in the investigation statements of several persons have been recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., statements of four persons have been recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C., medical reports have been collected and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners and eight other accused persons.

(2.) The application for bail filed by one of the petitioners. Purakh Chand Chandak. Criminal Misc. Case No. 662/93 during the state of investigation of the case was dismissed on 23-4-93.

(3.) The main thrust of the submissions of Shri Ram Jethamalani appearing for the petitioners was that after refusal of the previous application for bail by this court (by one of the petitioners) a significant change in the case has taken place, inasmuch as the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted; that the prosecution case against the petitioners is solely based on the dying declarations made by the deceased which is a weak piece of evidence, particularly when the deceased after being injured in the incident on 17-2-93 was removed to Delhi on 19-2-93 for better treatment and she died there of cardiac arrest on 27-2-93, that the dying declaration cannot be accepted to be true since there are several unsatisfactory features in it and the statements purportedly made by the deceased from time to time differ significantly. Shri Jethamalani further submitted that the petitioners are residents of Calcutta having substantial business interests there and there is little scope for their absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. He stated that the petitioners will be ready and willing to abide by any reasonable condition including reporting at any designated Police Station at Calcutta if this Court so directs. Elucidating the points, Shri Jethamalani submitted that the factual background of the case is that the petitioners, the father of the deceased and others were partners of the firm which owned the flour mill in question. The deceased armed with a power of attorney of her father had come to Cuttack with her mother to take possession of the mill on the plea that her father had become the sole proprietor of the firm by an agreement entered by the partners. Her move was opposed by Rohit Chandak and his supporters. The deceased had, therefore engaged private security man, had sought for Police help and had also moved the Court seeking prohibitory order. In essence, according to Shri Jethamalani, business and commercial interest was behind the incident.