-
by Admin
19 February 2026 3:14 PM
“The petitioner has satisfied the tripod test for bail — no flight risk, no influence over witnesses, and no evidence tampering” — With this finding, the Orissa High Court in September 2025 allowed bail to a man charge-sheeted for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, despite an original FIR for murder and an ongoing plea for reinvestigation. Justice G. Satapathy clarified that bail cannot be withheld as pre-trial punishment, especially where the cause of death is drowning and no compelling evidence suggests homicidal violence.
“Injury on Neck Not Ligature Mark”: Court Defers to Trial on Conflicting Medical Claims in Death Case
The prosecution had initially charged the petitioner under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC after the deceased woman was found dead in water shortly after being last seen with him. However, the charge-sheet ultimately filed under Section 306 IPC changed the legal landscape.
While the informant (the deceased’s mother) alleged murder by strangulation and drowning, the medical evidence presented a different picture. The post-mortem report revealed six ante-mortem injuries but concluded cause of death as “drowning.” Most crucially, the Professor of Forensic Medicine at Burla ruled out strangulation:
“The mark of injury No.5 can never be considered as a mark of strangulation,” the Court recorded, referring to the expert opinion from the FMT Department. [Para 7]
Acknowledging the controversy, the Court consciously avoided adjudicating on the medical evidence at this pre-trial stage:
“It is neither desirable nor advisable to analyze the reports in great detail… since it would tantamount to extensive consideration of case on merits, which is undesirable and not advisable.” [Para 7]
“Charge-Sheet Is for Abetment, Not Murder”: Court Says No Prima Facie Case for Section 302 IPC
Despite the FIR invoking Section 302 IPC and repeated assertions by the informant that her daughter was murdered, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet only under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. The Court took judicial note of this prosecutorial conclusion:
“The Investigating Agency, after the investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.” [Para 7]
The maximum punishment for Section 306 IPC being 10 years imprisonment, and the fact that the accused was already in custody since 31.03.2025, weighed in favour of granting bail.
“Pending Plea for De-novo Investigation Cannot Block Bail”: Article 21 Trumps Mere Suspicion
The mother of the deceased had filed CRLMC No. 2665 of 2024 seeking a de-novo investigation, along with CRLMP No. 777 of 2023 for preservation of critical forensic materials like CDR, Diatom test reports, CCTV footage, and the autopsy video. Yet, the Court ruled that the mere pendency of these proceedings cannot justify continued incarceration:
“Granting bail to the petitioner could not be directly in conflict with prayer for de-novo investigation since personal liberty of a person is sacrosanct and is guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution of India.” [Para 9]
In doing so, the Court distinguished the case from Awungshi Chirmayo v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2024 INSC 249), where the Supreme Court had ordered CBI investigation:
“The prayer for de-novo investigation is still pending before this Court… the release of the petitioner on bail may not impede such prayer.” [Para 9]
“Personal Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed on Mere Allegation of Influence”: No Evidence of Witness Threat or Police Interference
The informant also argued that the petitioner’s father, allegedly a senior Home Department official, could have influenced the police investigation and may interfere with witnesses if bail were granted.
But the Court firmly rejected this:
“The petitioner having been arrested and taken into custody and the investigating agency having submitted charge-sheet, it cannot be conclusively said that the petitioner is in position to influence the investigation, more particularly in absence of any materials in this regard.” [Para 8]
Further, the petitioner’s residence in Bhubaneswar, while the incident took place in Sambalpur, was cited as an additional safeguard against local interference.
“Bail Is the Rule, Jail Is the Exception”: No Grounds to Continue Incarceration in a 306 IPC Case
Justice Satapathy invoked the classic jurisprudential principle that bail is the norm and not the exception, emphasizing that:
“The accused has an inherent right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty… this principle flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” [Para 10]
The Court also applied the tripod test for bail — no flight risk, no influence over witnesses, and no tampering with evidence — all of which were satisfied in the petitioner’s case.
“The petitioner has satisfied the tripod test for grant of bail.” [Para 10]
The conduct of the petitioner in availing and surrendering post-interim bail was also praised:
“The petitioner has not misused the concession/liberty so granted to him… This conduct is relevant for consideration of bail positively in his favor.” [Para 8]
“Pending Trial Cannot Justify Pre-trial Punishment”: Custody Since March 2025 Considered Excessive
Noting that the petitioner had already been in custody for nearly six months, with no progress in trial, and with a charge-sheet already filed, the Court saw no justification in continued detention:
“The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.” [Para 11]
Bail Granted with Stringent Safeguards
The Court granted bail under Section 483 of BNSS, directing the petitioner to furnish ₹50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, and imposed strict conditions:
“The petitioner shall not leave the country… shall surrender his passport… shall cooperate with investigation… shall attend trial court on every date of posting.” [Para 12]
The Court added that any breach of bail conditions could invite proceedings under Section 269 of BNSS, 2023.
Date of Decision: 26th September 2025
