Orissa High Court
Siba Prasad Jena vs State Of Odisha ………. Opposite … on 7 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 3484 of 2025
Siba Prasad Jena ........ Petitioner
Sk. Zafarulla, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Ms. Siva Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
07.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case Sections
Station No. and
No.
Courts'
Name
136 19.07.2019 Baliapal C.T. Section
Case 498(A)/304(B)/302/506/34
No.330 IPC read with Section 4
of 2019 of the
pending D.P. Act.
in the
court of
learned
JMFC,
Basta
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 17-May-2025 20:13:34
2
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Baliapal P.S. Case No.136
of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.330 of 2019, pending in
the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Basta, registered for the
alleged commission of offences under Sections
498(A)/304(B)/302/506/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P.
Act., has filed this petition for his release on bail.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.07.2019 at about 7.30
PM, the informant Amit Jena presented a written report before
the Baliapal P.S. alleging that his sister Sunali Jena got married
to the present Petitioner as per Hindu tradition before five/six
years and she was blessed with one son. At the time of marriage
besides ornaments, cash of rupees fifty thousand was given as
dowry as per demand, from the groom side. Before three years
the husband and her in-laws were subjecting her to cruelty and
harassment in connection with demand of additional dowry
amount of Rs.30,000/-. The complainants got information that
his sister Sunali Jena has been killed and then hung at the
rented house near Santoshi Maa Temple at Baliapal. Hence, this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU case.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 17-May-2025 20:13:34
Page 2 of 3
3
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There
is no credible or incriminating material on record to connect
him to the alleged offenses. The petitioner has been in custody
19.03.2025. In light of these facts, the counsel prays that the
petitioner be enlarged on bail, as continued detention is
unjustified in the absence of substantial evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations.
7. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the
character of evidence available against the petitioner, the
severity of the prescribed punishment, and the absence of
reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of
the alleged offence or is unlikely to commit a similar offence if
released, this Court finds no merit in the prayer for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
8. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed.
Signature Not Verified ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Judge
Murmu
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 17-May-2025 20:13:34
Page 3 of 3