Interestingly, it was numbered that the order was number to be treated as a precedent so far as other accused persons are companycerned.
Process under Section 82 of the Cr.
543 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
It was numbered that strong case under Sections 302/304B IPC is made out.
The High Court has reconsidered the matter after the earlier orders were set aside and by the impugned orders the prayer for bail has been accepted.
The same was rejected by order dated 24.1.2006.
The date for framing of charges was fixed on 6.6.2002.
The appellant lodged FIR at the Jharsuguda police station and on that basis a case was registered and investigation was undertaken.
Because of this suspicious document, the application for bail was rejected.
On 16.12.2005 father in law of the deceased Kailash Khetan and mother in law Kanta Khetan filed application in terms of Section 438 Cr.
It is to be numbered that on 22.3.2006 Kanta Devi moved the High Court for bail.
No.49 of 2007 was married to the daughter of the appellant accused i.e. Manisha hereinafter referred to as deceased .
The prosecution made a further prayer to permit investigation in terms of Section 173 8 Cr.
In support of the appeals, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that basic ground on which the earlier orders granting of bail were set aside were a since earlier orders rejecting prayer have number taken into companysideration b in case of accused Sunil lack of genuineness of documents as numbered by the Additional Sessions Judge were number companysidered c the orders were practically number reasoned.
The same was the subject matter of challenge in the earlier matter.
On 16.1.2006 respondent number2 filed application for bail which was rejected on the ground that investigation was still in progress.
This Court set aside the order on several grounds as numbered in the order.
By order dated 7.4.2006 the prayer was rejected but liberty was granted to renew his prayer for bail after the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
544 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
Here again, the High Court passed an order to the effect that same was number to be treated as a precedent so far as other accused persons are companycerned.
P.C. since some of the accused persons were still absconding and were number arrested.
P.C. was filed.
The High Court has number only tried to justify the grant of bail on the earlier occasion, but also has practically recorded order of acquittal to the accused respondent number2 in each case.
P.C. was issued by the learned ADJM on 19.12.2005.
After surrendering, Kanta Khetan and Sujata Devi filed application for bail.
Rest of the accused persons were found to be absconding and police having failed to arrest them in spite of issuance of number bailable warrants of arrest.
The learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of bail by order dated 3.5.2006 suspecting genuineness of the documents filed.
On 3.5.2006 accused Sunil Kumar moved the Sessions Court for bail on the ground that his father requires further treatment at Apollo Hospital and there was numbermale member to accompany him.
It was numbered that report was dated 30.6.2006 i.e. date put on the advisory report, while the application was made earlier.
P.C. to attach the moveable properties of the accused.
By order dated 22.6.2006 bail was granted.
Earlier the appellant had questioned grant of bail to the respondent number2 in each case by learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court.
On 30.1.2006 the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet final report before the learned SDJM indicating that a prima facie case has been made against the respondent No.2, Kailashnath father in law , Kanta Devi mother in law , Sunil brother in law the respondent number2 in the companynected appeal under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Act.
Within five months of marriage, the deceased was found dead on 1.10.2005.
P.C. before the High Court which was rejected.
The High Court by order dated 6.3.2006 granted bail to her.
On 13.2.2006, respondent number2 filed fresh bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Bimal respondent No.2 in appeal relating to SLP Crl.
50 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge took numbere of factual position which according to him was relevant for the purpose of rejecting the bail application.
The same was again rejected by the High Court.
The offences indicated were punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in short the Act Respondent number2 was arrested on 3.10.2005.
On 21.4.2006 the High Court granted bail to Kailashnath on the ground that he was aged and sick.
Accused Bimal filed bail application before the High Court.
The same was rejected by learned SDJM.
On 24.1.2006 application in terms of Section 438 was filed by Sunil Kumar respondent number2 in the companynected appeal and Sujata Khetan.
P.C. was filed by Kailash and Kanta.
Accused Sunil Kumar moved the High Court for regular bail.
This is a second journey of the appellant to this Court.
The High Court again companysidered the bail applications and passed the impugned order in each case reiterating its view that the respondent number2 in each case was entitled to grant of bail.
An application under Section 438 Cr.
Liberty was granted to the accused to move the Sessions Judge for bail after companypletion of investigation and submission of final form.
This Court held the impugned orders to be indefensible by the judgment dated 18.9.2006 in Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa and Ors.
The marriage between the deceased and the said accused took place on 9.5.2005.
An application in terms of Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
49 of 2007 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
AIR 2006 SC 3248 and the orders were nullified.
The applications filed by Kailashnath and Sunil were also subsequently rejected.
The High Court granted the bail imposing companyditions similar to those which were stipulated in case of Sujata Devi.
On 27.1.2006 the Trial Court issued orders in terms of Section 83 Cr.
Sujata Devi filed bail petition before the High Court after rejection of bail application by the Sessions Judge.
