BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023). Sabyasachi Das … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. D.P.Dhal, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A.Pradhan, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. P.Satapathy, Addl. PP Ms.S.Patnaik, Advocate for Informant CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24.07.2026 (ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Jaleswar P.S. Case No. 385 of 2025 corresponding to ST Case No. 03 of 2026, arising out of CT Case No. 441 of 2025 pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaleswar, for being charge sheeted for commission of offences U/Ss. 85/108/3(5) of BNS read with Sec. 4 of DP Act. BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 2 2. The background of facts in precise are that the deceased Monalisa Das had married to the petitioner- Sabyasachi Das in the year 2021 and she gave birth to a male child on 14.07.2023, but on 27.08.2025 at around 9.48AM the deceased was found hanging from a fan in her matrimonial house. On receipt of such information, the informant who is the brother of the deceased went to the Police Station at Jaleswar and lodged an FIR alleging therein that after the marriage, the family members of the petitioner were subjecting the deceased to torture and cruelty for demand of dowry by utilising her as a maid servant and he believed that his sister had never committed suicide at all and she has been murdered by the petitioner and his entire family members and the mother of the petitioner was regularly torturing the deceased and also abusing her in filthy language. On this FIR, Jaleswar PS Case No. 385 of 2025 was registered against the petitioner, his brother and parents for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 85/103(1)/108/3(5) of BNS read with Sec. 4 of DP Act BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 3 and accordingly, the matter was investigated into, but subsequently the IO submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 85/108/3(5) of BNS read with Sec. 4 of DP Act. The petitioner was also taken into custody in this case on 13.09.2025 and when his bail application was turned down by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaleswar, the petitioner came before this Court in BLAPL No. 10615 of 2025 which was rejected as the investigation was going on then, but subsequently, the petitioner again approached this Court in BLAPL No. 13289 of 2025 which was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the concerned Sessions Court, but after refusal to bail to him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaleswar he is, ultimately, before this Court in this bail application. Being aggrieved with the investigation, the informant side has approached this Court in CRLMP No. 31 of 2026 in which Crime Branch investigation was ordered and accordingly, before taking up this BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 4 application for bail of the petitioner, the up-date of the Crime Branch investigation was apprised to this Court by way of an affidavit of the IO. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr.Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr.Abhisek Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has in fact surrendered before the Police and thereby, there is no question of any flight risk posed by the petitioner and the petitioner having cooperated the investigation, whatever may be the result of the Crime Branch Investigation, the petitioner can be released on bail because not only bail is the rule, but jail is the exception and there is hardly any apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from the process of law. Accordingly, Mr.Dhal prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 3.1. On the contrary, Ms.Saswata Patnaik, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter alia that not only the investigation done by the police was BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 5 perfunctory, but also there are enough materials to implicate the petitioner for offence U/S. 103 of BNS and in the course of investigation, no CCTV footage was seized nor any independent witness was initially associated with the investigation, rather the junior of the petitioner was examined as a witness and the post mortem examination of the deceased was never conducted by recording it in audio visual mode which casts a serious doubt in the investigation and the Crime Branch Investigation is likely to be culminated soon and, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be considered after result of the Crime Branch Investigation. Further, Ms.Saswata Patnaik submits that the petitioner having managed the investigation, he should not be granted bail at this stage, more particularly when independent witnesses from the family members of the deceased are yet to be examined. Accordingly, Ms.Patnaik prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 6 3.2. Mr.P.Satapathy, learned Addl. PP not only supported the submission advanced by Ms.Saswata Patnaik, but also he submits that the Crime Branch Investigation is going on and there is every likelihood that the petitioner would be implicated for commission of offence U/S. 103 of BNS since the materials on record do make out a case for said offence and the petitioner being prima facie involved in such a gruesome case of murder of his wife, he should not be enlarged on bail. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Satapathy prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture and abetting commission of her suicide, but the Doctor in the PM report has opined the cause of death of deceased to be due to combined effect of asphyxia and venous congestion as a result of antemortem hanging. No doubt, the Crime Branch Investigation is going on, but the status as furnished by the IO in the Crime BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 7 Branch Investigation reveals that the investigation is likely to be completed very soon and the Investigation Officer in his affidavit has inter alia stated as under:- “The Investigating Officer also submitted a query to the Superintendent, G.K.Bhattar CHC, Jaleswar to opine the nature of death of the deceased Monalisa Das as to the death was suicidal or homicidal and also received the query report from Dr.Sanjay Kumar Panda and Dr.Paratus Ranjan Mohapatra of GKB Govt Hospital, Jaleswar who opined the nature of death of the deceased Monalisa Das to be suicidal due to combined effect of asphyxia and venous congestion as a result of ante-mortem suicidal hanging. He(IO) has also collected CDR and SDR of all suspected members and analysed.” 5. The primary considerations and reasoning in detaining a person in custody pending a criminal case are preventing such person from (i) committing further offence(s), (ii) destroying materials/evidence and (iii) securing his attendance at the trial, in addition to preventing him from tampering with the prosecution evidence likely to be tendered in the trial, but in this case, the forwarding report of the petitioner itself reveals that he has voluntarily surrendered before the police and thereby, the apprehension of absconding is BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 8 mitigated against the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner is in custody since 13.09.2025 and in the meantime, the Jaleswar Police has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 85/108/3(5) of BNS read with Sec. 4 of DP Act and the affidavit filed by the IO in the Crime Branch investigation does not reveal any further material at this stage, but even if the further material comes in Crime Branch Investigation and the petitioner would be implicated for gravest offence like U/S. 103 of BNS, in that event the informant would be at liberty to approach the Court for appropriate order. Be that as it may, the materials on record do not disclose about the petitioner to pose a flight risk nor the stage is available for him to tamper with the investigation. The maximum punishment provided for the offences alleged against the petitioner is upto ten years and he is about to complete one year in custody without any trial. Besides, bail should not be confused with acquittal of the accused, rather it is a temporary release from the custody to face the trial. It BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 9 is also a principle that bail is the rule, but jail is the exception and unless there are serious materials to refuse bail, bail should not be withheld to the accused as a pre-trial punishment. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the materials so placed on record keeping in view the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody and meeting the apprehension of the informant for tampering prosecution evidence by the petitioner which can also be curbed by imposing appropriate condition and there being no external injury found on the person of the deceased except the ligature mark as per the PM report of the deceased, this Court without expressing any view on merits, admits the petitioner to bail. 6. 6. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed and the Petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in BLAPL No.4632 of 2026 p. 10 seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not contact the family members of the informant or threaten them. The petitioner shall cooperate the trial, (ii) The petitioner shall not threaten, induce, influence or coerce any of the witnesses including the family members of the victim acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court. (iii) The petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance are dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th day of July, 2026/Kishore