Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has iterate
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 657 of 2025 Rama Madhi & Ors. ..…... Petitioners Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 21.02.2025 Order No. 03. Dated F.I.R No. Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 16 29.08.2023 Malkangiri Sadar 302/201/34 of the IPC C.T. Case No.03 of 2024 pending in the of Court learned Sessions Judge, Malkangiri 1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement. 2. The petitioners being in custody in connection with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14 Malkangiri Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.03 of 2024, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Malkanagiri, registered for the alleged 2 commission of offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC, have filed this petition for their release on bail. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 29.08.2023 one Ganga Madkami lodged an F.I.R before the Police stating that somebody had hanged the dead body of his brother named Deba Madkami. It is alleged that there was dispute in between Muka Madhi and the deceased, for which the deceased assaulted the wife of Muka Madhi. Thereafter, it is alleged that the Petitioners along with others had assaulted the deceased and hanged in a tree. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected with the offences as alleged by the prosecution in any manner. He further submits that the Petitioners are in custody since 30.08.2023. Hence, he submits that the Petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14 justified and violative of his fundamental right. The importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the case of 3 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 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." it 6. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14 1 (1981) 3SCC 671 speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But an accused cannot be disentitled from 4 complaining of infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial. 7. 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.
Legal Reasoning
8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioners are alleged to have been involved in heinous crime of murder. He further submits that the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveals that prima facie case is well made out against the present Petitioners for commission of the alleged offences. Hence, he vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. 9. Without going into the merit of the case and considering the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 role of the present Petitioners which is quite hazy because of the facts presented before the I.O. and also in the statement of 5 the informant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as the period of detention of the Petitioners in custody, it is directed that the Petitioners 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:- i. the Petitioners shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii. the Petitioners shall appear before the local police station once a week on Monday in between 10 A.M. to 12.00 Noon. iii. the Petitioners shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; iv. the Petitioners shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; and v. Each of the Petitioners, shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties like mango, neem, tamarind etc., around their village on Government land/community land/private land, if it is in the possession of the Petitioners or their family members. In case of unavailability of land, the Revenue Authority shall assist to indentify the land for plantation. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14 cancellation of the bail. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail 6 10. The I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station, in coordination with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the Petitioners have planted the saplings or not. 11. It is further made clear that the Petitioners shall file an affidavit after the plantation of the saplings before the local Police Station, assuring that they shall maintain those saplings for two years. 12. The District Nursery/D.F.O. shall extend a helping hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioners.
Decision
13. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge Murmu ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14