The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 687 of 2025 Adma Madhi ..…... Petitioner Mr. Krushna Chandra Dash, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Smt. J. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 05.02.2025 Order No. 01.
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. 0180 Dated Police Station Sections Case No. and Courts’ Name 295- Sections A/364/120- B/302/201/506/34 of IPC 05.06.2020 Malkangiri C.T. Case of No.101 2022 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Malkangiri 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsels for the Parties. 2 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Malkangiri P.S. Case No. 180 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.101 of 2022, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Malkangiri registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 295- A/364/120-B/302/201/506/34 of IPC has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.06.2020, one Unga Madkami had presented a written report at Malkangiri Police Station alleging therein that his family members had adopted Christianity which was opposed by the villagers. On 04.06.2020 at about 11.00 P.M., some villagers named Deba Madkami, Budra Muchaki, Aita Kabasi and Ramu Madi and some others came to the house of his cousin brother named Samaru Madkami and took him into the jungle to attend an urgent meeting. At about 12 midnight, some of them again came to his house being armed with deadly weapons and took him into the jungle to attend the said meeting. But, out of fear, he managed to escape from their clutch and reported at police station for taking necessary action. Based on the said report lodged by the informant, case was registered vide Malkangiri P.S. Case No. Page 2 of 7 3 180 of 2020 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 295-A/364/120-B/302/201/506/34 IPC.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was not directly involved in this case, but he was instigated as per the prosecution. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 07.06.2020. He further submits that, in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted by the I.O. on 04.10.2020. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Hon’ble 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, State of Bihar, wherein the Hon’ble 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 Page 3 of 7 4 financial the necessary adequate expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." resources incur to 7. He further argues that the period of long incarceration suffered, which entitle the Petitioner 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 Bihar 1wherein it has been held 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 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. 1 (1981) 3SCC 671 Page 4 of 7 5 8. 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. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner. 10. Without going into the merit of the case and based on the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody as well as the fact that the co-accused persons have already been released on bail, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that:- 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 Page 5 of 7 6 i. the Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii. the Petitioner shall appear before the local police station once a week on Monday in between 10 A.M. to 12.00 Noon till the end of trial. iii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; and iv. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner. v. the Petitioner, shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties like mango, neem, tamarind etc., around his village on Government land/community land/private land, if it is in the possession of the Petitioner or his family members. In case of unavailability of land, the Revenue Authority shall assist to indentify the land for plantation. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 11. The I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station, in coordination with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the Petitioner has planted the saplings or not. Page 6 of 7 7 12. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit after the plantation of the saplings before the local Police Station, assuring that he shall maintain those saplings for two years. 13. The District Nursery/D.F.O. shall extend a helping hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner.
Decision
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Sumitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Feb-2025 18:22:19 Page 7 of 7