The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 3077 of 2025 Suraj Sindhria @ Suraj Sendria @ Bandhu ..…... Petitioner Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 23.04.2025 Order No. 01. FIR No. 257 Dated Police Station Sections Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 302/34 of IPC 22.11.2021 Hirakud S.T. Case No.33/39 of 2022-23 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:55:19 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2 3. The petitioner, who is currently in custody in connection with Hirakud P.S. Case No. 257 of 2021, corresponding to S.T. Case No. 33/39 of 2022-23 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, has filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case involves allegations under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2021, one Subham Mohanty, a security guard at Hindalco, lodged a written report with the Inspector-in-Charge of Hirakud Police Station. He alleged that he had received information about an unidentified dead body lying in the Hindalco Ash Pond area. Upon inspection, it was found that the deceased had sustained sharp- cut injuries. The informant suspected that unknown persons had murdered the deceased using a sharp weapon and subsequently disposed of the body by dumping it into the nearby drain.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a simple and innocent individual who has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.06.2020 and that the Investigating Officer has already submitted the charge sheet on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:55:19 04.10.2020. Page 2 of 7 3 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.11.2021. It is further submitted that out of the 34 charge-sheeted witnesses, 12 have already been examined. In view of the delay in progress of the trial, the petitioner prays to be released on bail. 7. 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 to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, continued incarceration of the petitioner for an extended period without conclusion of trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of his 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 the necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." resources financial incur to Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:55:19 4 8. 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 a significant majority of the accused belong to economically and socially disadvantaged sections of society and often lack awareness of legal rights or access to competent legal assistance, the right to a speedy trial assumes even greater importance. While in a given case, an accused person's express demand for a speedy trial may weigh in their favour, the absence of such a demand cannot be used to deny or dilute their right. An accused cannot be deprived of the protection guaranteed under the right to a speedy trial merely because they did not expressly assert or insist upon it. 9. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 that incarceration has further Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication 1 (1981) 3SCC 671 Location: OHC 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:55:19 Page 4 of 7 5 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. 10. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is alleged to be involved in the commission of a heinous offence of murder. Accordingly, he strongly opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 11. Without going into the merit of the case and based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody, 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:- i. the Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:55:19 each date of posting of the case; Page 5 of 7 6 ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; and iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of 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, 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 them for a period of two years. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:55:19 Page 6 of 7 7 14. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings.
Decision
15. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:55:19 Page 7 of 7