It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner: Orissa High Court
The mental abuse must not be demonstrated to injure the health of the petitioner. In reaching such a conclusion, the social position, educational level of the parties, the society in which they move must always be taken into consideration, the possibility or otherwise of the parties that already exist together, and all other relevant facts and conditions which cannot or cannot be described exhaustively. The judgment was passed by The High Court of Orissa in the case of Dipak Bhutia Vs the State of Odisha [BLAPL No.5701 OF 2020] by a Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Panigrahi.
The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 439 of CrPC seeking bail in connection with a case pending before the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar. The petitioner herein is the accused in connection with the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 307, 506, 34 of I.P.C.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The allegations as set out in the FIR are omnibus in nature and there is absolutely no allegation of any specific overt act against the present petitioner. Further, on perusal of the FIR and the statement of the victim, it can be seen that both are contradictory and apart from that offence under Section 307 of I.P.C may not be made out against the petitioner, as no injury in the vital parts of the body of the victim and all the injuries including burn injury are simple in nature. Hence, the petitioner may be granted bail.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent pleaded that the petitioner cannot be granted bail as the investigation is still ongoing and while further, explaining the cruelty he referred to the case Neeraj Subhash Mehta Vs. In the State of Maharashtra, the court noted that “cruelty implies harsh and harmful conduct with certain intensity and persistence. It covers acts causing both physical and mental agony and torture or tyranny and harm as well as unending accusations and recrimination reflecting bitterness putting the victim thereof to intense miscarries.”
While dismissing the bail petition the court held that the investigation is still going on, from a perusal of the FIR, “it appears that offences under the Indian Penal Code, are prima facie definitely made out, though it requires thorough trial.” Further, the learned court observed that “the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.”