SUNIL KUMAR KHETAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the third time that the petitioner is before this Court in connection with G. R. Case No. 1344 of 2005 relating to jharsuguda P. S. Case No. 413 of 2005 which is now pending before the Court of learned addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S. T. No. 24 of 2006.

(2.) THE co-accused-Bimal married to the daughter, namely, Manisha (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') of one Gajanand agrawal, the informant. The marriage took place on 9-5-2005. Within five months of the marriage, the deceased was found dead in her bed-room in the matrimonial home on 1-10-2005. An information was lodged by said Gajanand Agrawal in the jharsuguda Police Station alleging, inter alia, that the deceased was being tortured on account of demand of dowry, by her husband and other in-laws. The FIR, was registered under sections 498-A/302/304-B/ 406/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the D. P. Act.

(3.) THE petitioner is the brother of the husband of the deceased. The husband of the deceased Bimal Kumar Khetan was arrested on 3-10-2005. The petitioner and other co-accused persons, being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased were found to be absconding and in spite of all efforts by the police, they were not able to apprehend them. The prosecution filed an application under Sections 82 and 83 of the cr. P. C. The father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased filed an application before this Court under Section 438, Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Process under section 82 of the Cr. P. C. was issued by the learned S. D. J. M. on 19-12-2005. The petitioner, on 24-1-2006, filed an application under Section 438, Cr. P. C. along with another co-accused-Sujata Khetan. The said bail application was rejected by this Court by order dated 24-1-2006. The anticipatory bail application of the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased was also rejected by this Court on 27-1-2006. Orders were issued by the learned trial Court in terms of Section 83, Cr. P. C. to attach the movable properties of the accused. Charge-sheet was submitted on 30-1-2006 before the learned S. D. J. M. indicating that a prima facie case has been made out against kailash'nath (father-in-law), Kanta Devi (mother-in-law), Sunil (present petitioner)and Bimal (husband of the deceased) under sections 498-A/302/304-B/406/34, IPO read with Section 4 of the D. P. Act. The pros ecution also made a prayer to permit the investigating Agency to continue investigation in terms of Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. on the ground that some of the accused persons are still absconding and have not been arrested. The petitioner after being taken to custody, moved a regular bail application before this Court and by order dated 7-4-2006, his prayer for grant of bail was rejected granting liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the case is committed to the court of Session. After commitment, the petitioner approached the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda for grant of bail. The petitioner also took a ground in the said petition that his fath'er Kailashnath Khetan who has been released on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court is required to undergo further treatment at Apollo hospital and there is no male member to accompany him. A medical certificate was also filed along with the bail application. The prayer for bail was rejected by the learned addl. Sessions Judge by his order dated 3-5-2006. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court in BLAPL No. 4185 of 2006. By order dated 18-5-2006, learned single Judge of this Court directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on the terms and conditions as stated in the said order. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court as well as the order dated 22-6-2006 by which this Court directed that the husband of the deceased, namely, Bimal, shall be released on bail. The Apex Court set aside both the orders by which the petitioner as well as his brother Bimal were directed to be released on bail and remitted the matter back to this Court for hearing the bail application afresh in accordance with law.