SONI SENAPATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the cases relate to one order, i.e., order dated 7th February, 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in BLAPL No. 215 of 2006 in connection with G.R. Case No. 157 of 2006 pending before the SDJM (S), Cuttack the same were heard together.

(2.) CRLMA No. 16 of 2006 has been filed by Soni Senapati, informant in the aforesaid G.R. Case praying for cancellation of bail granted to accused-opposite parties 2 and 3 namely Cecon Patnaik and Kamalakanta Patnaik by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack by order dated 7th February, 2006 in BLAPL No.215 of 2006. CRLMA No. 17 of 2006 has been filed by accused Cecon Patnaik praying modification of one of the conditions imposed on him by the Sessions Judge while granting him bail.

(3.) To appreciate the inter se disputes among the parties, it would be prudent to have a bird's eye view at the gist of the allegations made in the FIR lodged by informant Soni Senapati at the Mahila Police Station, Cuttack on the basis of which Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 157 of 2006 was registered. She stated that she had married Cecon Patnaik according to Hindu rites and customs on 21 st of January, 2005. After the marriage her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with presentation articles brought by her from her parents and displayed ill-treatment to her. They even did not hesitate to torture her on demand of Rs. 1,00,000.00 as dowry. It was alleged that while she was staying with Cecon at her husband's working place at Hyderabad, the latter tortured her as the aforesaid demand of cash was not met. The informant was therefore constrained to return back to her parents. Besides many other allegations against her in-laws, she also alleged that being asked she had been to her in- laws' house on 23rd of January, 2006 when in a room locked from inside her husband gagged her mouth by a cloth and while her parents-in-law were holding her hands and legs, her husband pressed a pillow on her face. However when she was struggling to escape as the cloth slipped from her mouth and she started shouting consequently they left her. But then they threatened to kill her and also her parents should she not agree for a mutual divorce. Being so threatened she agreed for a mutual divorce and did not disclose this fact to her parents as she apprehended danger to their life. She stated that only after closure of the divorce case in Court she could venture to report the entire matter to police. On the basis of such allegations the aforesaid Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case and the corresponding G.R. Case were initiated for alleged commission of offences under Sections 498-A/294/506/307/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband and father-in-law of the informant were arrested and produced before the SDJM (S), Cuttack who rejected their bail application for which they moved the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack on 6.2.2006. The learned Sessions Judge took up their bail application on 7th of February, 2006 and by order passed that very day he granted bail to the said two accused persons. It is alleged by the informant that notwithstanding the prayer of the State Counsel to defer hearing of the bail application so as to enable him to produce the Case Diary, the learned Sessions Judge with undue haste heard the matter and granted bail to the aforesaid accused persons and the order of the learned Sessions Judge having been passed without giving due opportunity to the prosecution to produce the relevant materials and to be heard, the order was unjust, illegal and bail granted to the accused persons is liable to be cancelled on that score.