The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1148 of 2024 Muna Khan Petitioner(s) Mr. Ramesh Chandra Moharana, Adv. …. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Smt. Jyosna Mayee Sahoo, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 07.01.2025 Dated F.I.R. No. 0555 20.10.2020 Sadar Police Station Sections Sections 302/449/120(B)/109/ 457/380/34 of I.P.C Case No. and Courts’ Name S.T. Case No.198 of 2021 in connection P.S. Case with 2020 No.555 the pending court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in of 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with S.T. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Jan-2025 17:37:31 Case No.198 of 2021 arising out of P.S. Case No.555 of 2020 pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, registered for the alleged commission of Page 1 of 5 offence under Sections 302/449/120(B)/109/ 457/380/34 of I.P.C, has filed this application for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.10.2020 at about 12.02 P.M, the informant received information that someone killed her sister and her health condition is serious. Soon after hearing the said information he immediately went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased Prabhasini Pradhan dead. Then, he suspected that her husband named Gopal Behera committed murder of her sister. Hence, reported the matter for legal action. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further contends that the Petitioner has been in custody since 03.11.2020. Further, the co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in BLAPL No.11928 of 2022. 6. He further contends 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. vrs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1, 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, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Jan-2025 17:37:31 1 1979 AIR 1360 Page 2 of 5 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." 7. He further argues that the period of long incarceration suffered, which entitles 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 Bihar2 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 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. 8. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)3 that incarceration has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Jan-2025 17:37:31 2 (1981) 3 SCC 671 3 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 3 of 5 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 bail prayer of the Petitioner. 10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, without going into the merits of the case and the since the co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in BLAPL No.11928 of 2022, this Court directs the court in seisin over the matter to release the present Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Jan-2025 17:37:31 i. ii. iii. the the Petitioner shall appear before concerned local Police Station on every Monday between 10.00A.M. to 1.00P.M. till conclusion of the trial; the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal activities in future; the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; Page 4 of 5 iv. the Petitioner shall not threaten or cause any kind of inconvenience to the victim or the family members of the victim; Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 12. This 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: 08-Jan-2025 17:37:31 Page 5 of 5