The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.166 of 2024 Bulu Sabar State of Odisha …. Petitioner Mr. Gagan Bihari Singh, Adv. -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, AGA CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No.
Decision
ORDER 17.01.2024 F.I.R. No. 17 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name 25.02.2019 Gunupur C.T. Case No.09 of 2020 pending in the court of learned District Sessions & Judge, Rayagada Sections Sections 147/148/450/ 325/302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4(1) of the Odisha of Witch Prevention Hunting Act. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioners being in custody in connection with Gunupur P.S. Case No.17 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.09 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Jan-2024 18:05:55 alleged District & Sessions Judge, Rayagada, registered for the commission of offence under Sections Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 147/148/450/325/302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4(1) of the Odisha Prevention of Witch Hunting Act, have filed this petition for their release on bail. 4. The brief facts of the case is that while the parents of the informant were sleeping in the night on 23.02.2019 the accused persons including the Petitioners murdered them suspecting of practicing witchcraft in the village. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the name of another Rabi Sabar of the village of the Petitioner is reflected in the FIR, the Petitioner was arrested due to misidentification and as such the Petitioners have been languishing in custody since long. 6. He further submits that the Petitioners completely an innocent person and there is no iota of evidence against the Petitioners. They have also no criminal antecedent. Some of the co-accused persons have already been released on bail. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy trial is a fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a person in custody for such a long time without any trial is not justified and violative of his fundamental right. The importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs Home Secretary, Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Jan-2024 18:05:55 // 3 // State of Bihar, wherein the Supreme Court has iterated that: "Speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier judgment dated 26th February, 1979, an essential ingredient of ’reasonable, fair and just" procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the accused. The State cannot be permitted to deny the constitutional right of speedy trial to the accused on the ground that the State has no adequate financial resources to incur the necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." 8. He further argues that the period of long incarceration suffered, which entitle the Petitioners for grant of bail. Right to Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an under trial prisoner and this observations have been resonated, time and again, in several judgments including that of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1 wherein it has been stated that the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in a country like ours, where the large majority of the accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society and are not versed with laws and after face the dearth of competent legal advice. Of course, in a given case, if an accused Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Jan-2024 18:05:55 1 1981)3 SCC 671 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But an accused cannot be disentitled from complaining of infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial. 9. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 that incarceration has further deleterious effects where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily. 10. Learned counsel for the State though vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioners, concedes the submission with regard to length of detention of the Petitioners in custody. 11. Without going into the merits of the case and considering the facts and submission made as well as factum of release of co-accused and length of detention of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Jan-2024 18:05:55 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Petitioners in custody, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioners on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the court in seisin over the matter shall release the Petitioners on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. iv. v. the Petitioners will appear before the court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of the case till completion of trial; the Petitioners will not criminal activities in future; the Petitioners will not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; the Petitioners will not threaten the informant or any family members in any manner; the Petitioners will not influence any witness; indulge in any 12. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Ayaskanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Jan-2024 18:05:55 Page 5 of 5