The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2204 of 2023 Kaibarta Naik …. Petitioner State of Odisha Mr. Suresh Kumar Jena, Advocate -versus- Opp. Party …. Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, Additional Standing Counsel. CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 25.04.2023 Sections 498A/ 506/ 302/ 304B/ 34 of the I.P.C. Dated Police F.I.R. Station No. 0198 29.08.2019 Barpali Case No. and Court’s Name C.T. Case No.62-63 of 2020-21 pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bargarh 03. 1. This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Page 1 of 7 // 2 // 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Barpali P.S. Case No.198 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.62-63 of 2020-21, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 498A/ 506/ 302/ 304B/ 34 of the I.P.C., has filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant lodged a written report stating that on 26.06.2019, his daughter Prabhati Pandey (Deceased') was married to the Petitioner as per their custom prevalent in their caste. During marriage, they gifted many household articles as dowry to the Petitioner's family. However, the Petitioner's family members were not satisfied with the same and kept on assaulting the deceased both physically and mentally. The deceased informed the Informant regarding their demand, however, due to poor financial condition, the Informant was not able to fulfill the same. The accused persons threatened to kill the deceased, if she would refuse to fulfill their demand. On 28.08.2019 at about 5.00 P.M., the Petitioner informed him over telephone that his daughter has received grievous injury on her body. After receiving the news, the Informant Page 2 of 7 // 3 // immediately reached their house and found his daughter lying dead with burn injuries over her body. Thereafter, the informant lodged the F.I.R. at the police station. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in this case charge-sheet has already been submitted. The trial has also been substantially progressed and some of the witnesses have already been examined. But, they did not support the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the Petitioner is an innocent person having no nexus with the alleged offences. Further, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are untrue, concocted and the present F.I.R. has been lodged to harass the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the deceased had an illicit relationship with another person before marriage and she had been in contact with that person even after marriage. Due to this, there was tussle between the husband and wife. On the date of occurrence, the Petitioner had decided to inform the informant's family about the situation and, therefore, the deceased committed suicide. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. on 30.08.2019. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled to bail.
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Apex Court has held that right to have speedy trial is Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 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: it is "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 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 the necessary financial the expenditure administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." incur for improving resources needed 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 Bihar1 wherein it has been stated that the obligation of the State or the 1 1981)3 SCC 671 Page 4 of 7 // 5 // 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, the application of the said NDPS Rule is wholly inadvisable. 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)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. 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 Page 5 of 7 // 6 // 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the Petitioner submitting that there is clinching evidence against the Petitioner. As per the statement of the mother of the deceased, there was constant dowry demand and torture at the behest of the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. 10. Without going into the merit of the case and considering the submissions made, facts and circumstances and the length of detention of the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the court in seisin over the matter shall release the Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. the Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case, he shall not indulge in similar activities in future; and he shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 11. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.
Decision
12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Page 6 of 7 // 7 // 13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) amit Page 7 of 7