KELI CHHUALSINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, learned Additional Standing counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Balugaon P.S. Case No.65 of 2017 arising out of I.C.C. Case No.24 of 2017 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Banpur for alleged commission of offences under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.3 is the sisterin-law and petitioner no.4 is the husband of the deceased Anjali Chhualsingh respectively and the marriage between the deceased and petitioner no.4 was solemnized on 01.06.2010 and they were blessed with a daughter and the deceased sustained burn injuries on 22.11.2016 while cooking and thereafter she was shifted to Balugaon C.H.C. and then KIIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar and then to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment where she expired on 29.11.2016 and the cause of death was on account of burn injuries. It is contended that even though there is no clinching materials against the petitioners nos. 1, 3 and 4 to have tortured the deceased in connection with demand of dowry but all the same at a belated stage on 13.01.2017 i.e. about two weeks after the death of the deceased, a complaint petition was filed by the brother of the deceased namely Sitakanta Balabantaray containing concocted stories. The learned J.M.F.C., Banpur referred the matter to the Inspector in charge, Balugaon Police Station under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register the case and to take up the investigation and accordingly the case has been registered. Learned counsel further submitted that unless the petitioners nos. 1, 3 and 4 are granted anticipatory bail particularly petitioners nos. 1 and 3 in view of the proviso to section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., they will be seriously prejudiced.