Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Two For Alleged Murder Of Assistant Forest Conservator Soumya Mohapatra

The Orissa High Court in the last week rejected the pre-arrest bail pleas of the then District Forest Officer (DFO), Paralakhemundi and his cook for their alleged involvement in the suspicious death of Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra in July, 2021.Upon perusing the case papers, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh did not find any merit in the anticipatory bail pleas, for which he held –“Considering the materials on record qua the accusation vis-à-vis under Sections 302/120-B IPC, this Court does not find any merit in the submission that the present Petitioners have to be granted “exceptional remedy” of anticipatory bail.”Case BackgroundThe case revolved around the suspicious death of ACF Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra ('the deceased') on July 12, 2021 in his official residence at Paralakhemundi. As per the version of the wife of the deceased, he received fatal burn injuries while burning certain scrap items using kerosene.However, father of the deceased smelled foul play and alleged that the wife of the deceased had extra-marital affair with the then DFO, Paralakhemundi. It was his further allegation that the wife, in collusion and conspiracy with the DFO and a cook, committed the murder of the deceased.A Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the CID, CB conducted investigation in the case and filed a charge-sheet against the three accused persons under Sections 285 and 304-A of the IPC. On the basis of such charge-sheet, the SDJM took cognizance under the aforesaid provisions against the wife of the deceased. However, the informant filed a 'protest petition' show-casing his dissatisfaction over investigation.Upon consideration of materials, the SDJM treated the protest petition as 'complaint' and recorded initial statements of the informant-father and other witnesses. A prima facie case of murder and conspiracy was made out. Accordingly, cognizance was taken under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC against the three accused. Though the wife of the deceased as well as the DFO filed separate petitions seeking to quash the order of cognizance, the same were earlier turned down by the High Court. Considering the fact that they have been implicated in sessions triable offences and non-bailable warrants have been issued to them for appearance, the petitioners filed these applications seeking pre-arrest bail.Not entitled for “exceptional remedy” of anticipatory bailIt was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have thoroughly cooperated in the investigation carried out by the Crime Branch and they were charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Section 285 and 304-A of IPC. Merely because a separate cognizance has been taken for commissions of offences under Sections 302 and 120-B, they ought not be denied the protection from arrest. Opposing such prayer, the counsel for the State as well as the informant pointed out a serious anomaly in recording of the dying declaration. It was highlighted that though requisition for recording of dying declaration was issued at 11:10 PM of 12.07.2021, the time of recording of dying declaration has been mentioned as 11:05 PM.Further, the post-mortem report found carbon particles sticking to the mucosa of larynx, trachea, bronchus and bronchioles. Referring to the above, it was contended that the stand taken by the investigating agency during investigation and reiterated by the petitioners that the deceased was able to speak has to be viewed with grave suspicion.The Court found considerable force in such submission and held that certificate of the treating doctor certifying the victim to be capable of giving dying declaration was vital to ascertain the exact sequence of events, which was unfortunately not obtained. It also held–“And, further non-mentioning of the details as to whether victim himself has written the dying declaration or as to who has scribed the same especially, when the dying declaration is conspicuously silent regarding such certificate, invalidates the said dying declaration since it is impossible for a person having 95% burn injury to write and significantly the Gazetted Officer as well as the Medical Officer in whose presence the alleged declaration was recorded, do not throw light regarding this aspect.”Considering materials on record, the Court found it apposite to deny the exceptional relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, it gave them liberty to surrender before the trial Court and move for regular bail, which shall be decided on own merit.Case Title: Sangram Keshari Behera v. State of Odisha & Anr. and tagged matterCase No: ABLAPL Nos. 11024 & 11083 of 2025Date of Order: October 23, 2025Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Y. Parekh, Advocate; Mr. R.K. Jena, AdvocateCounsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. S. Panda, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State; Mr. R. Behera, Advocate for the InformantCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 143Click Here To Read/Download Order

Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Two For Alleged Murder Of Assistant Forest Conservator Soumya Mohapatra

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Two For Alleged Murder Of Assistant Forest Conservator Soumya Mohapatra

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers