The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3442 of 2025 Babuna Nath @ Nutan Nath ..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satapthy, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 07.05.2025 FIR/PR No. Dated Police Station Case No. Courts’ Name and Sections 105 14.07.2023 Gurudijh atia C.T. Case No.369 of 2023, corresponding to S.T Case No.06 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh Section 498-A, 304-B, 306, and 34 of the IPC 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2 3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.105 of 2023, corresponding to C.T Case No.369 of 2023, further corresponding to S.T. Case No.06 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh, has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B, 306, and 34 of the IPC. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 14.07.2023 at about 11:10 A.M one Pramod Patra, the informant presented a written report, at Gurudijhatia P.S., alleging therein that 12.12.2021, the marriage of his daughter Pravati Patra, the deceased was solemnized with the present petitioner as per the Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage as per the demand of the in-laws of the deceased, a cash of Rs.3 lakhs lakhs along with Gold Ornaments and other house hold articles were given as dowry to the in-laws. It is further alleged that demanding more dowry to the deceased, the petitioner along with other in- laws of the deceased, were torturing her both physically and mentally. It is further alleged that on 14.07.2023 the sister-in-law of the deceased telephoned him that the deceased was shifted to hospital and requested him to come. When the informant arrived at the house of the petitioner, came to know that the Page 2 of 7 3 deceased was taken to hospital by the petitioner and other family members. Hence the informant suspects the petitioner and other family members of him might have committed murder of the deceased.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 16.07.2023 and the charge sheet has been submitted on 30.10.2023. He further submits that as against total 33 prosecution witnesses, only 10 have been examined, and, therefore, the trial is not expected to be so soon. He further submits that for such long detention of the Petitioner in custody when the trial is progressing at a snail’s space and no such step is being taken by the prosecution to expedite the same, further detention of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the bail application of the petitioner may be favourbaly considered and he may be allowed to go on bail in the interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, keeping the petitioners in Page 3 of 7 4 prolonged custody without commencement or conclusion of trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights. 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 adequate financial resources to incur the necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every undertrial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. Page 4 of 7 5 applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker sections of society and often lack access to competent legal assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata. It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts irreparable harm—especially if the accused is ultimately 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 5 of 7 6 acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are prioritized and concluded expeditiously. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. 10. Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the petitioner’s custody, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case subject to stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court seized of the matter, with the further condition that:- i. The petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM. ii. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail. iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iv. The petitioner, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on government land, Page 6 of 7 7 community land, or private land in the possession of the petitioner or his family members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying land for the 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 as required. 12. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants for a period of two years. 13. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings.
Decision
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Gitanjali Location: AU Date: 15-May-2025 19:26:51 (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Page 7 of 7