The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3406 of 2025 Sangita Chatar Petitioner(s) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda, Adv. …. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Miss Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Sections Section 302 of I.P.C. Dated
Decision
ORDER 07.05.2025 Case No. and Courts’ Name Order No. Police F.I.R. No. Station 0124 28.08.2018 Chandaka C.T. Case No.02 of 2019 in connection with Chandaka P.S Case No.124 of 2018 corresponding Case to 2018 No.844 pending the Court of learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar G.R. of in 01. 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 C.T. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 13:37:07 Case No.02 of 2019 in connection with Chandaka P.S Case No.124 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.844 of 2018 Page 1 of 6 pending in the Court of learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C, has filed this application for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the informant after reaching at her home on 27.08.2018 found her son dead. She also found the present Petitioner standing near to the dead body. On asking, the Petitioner confessed that she has killed the son of the informant. Accordingly, upon filing of the F.I.R and completion of investigation, the Petitioner was arrested and has been languishing in custody since 28.08.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has been entangled in this case due to some previous enmity. She is no way connected to the offences alleged against her. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that during course of investigation none of the witnesses have stated anything against the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contends that though the Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 2018, trial in the case has not been completed till today. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner 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 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 13:37:07 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, 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, the application of the said NDPS Rule is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 13:37:07 1 1979 AIR 1360 2 (1981) 3 SCC 671 Page 3 of 6 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)3 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. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner. She further submits that such type of offences is not tolerable in a law abiding society. She, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this BLAPL. 10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the court in seisin over the matter to release Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 13:37:07 3 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 4 of 6 the present Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. iv. the the Petitioner shall appear before concerned in every local Police Station fortnight on Monday between 10.00A.M. to 1.00P.M. till conclusion of the trial; the Petitioner shall not indulge herself in any criminal activities in future; the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; the Petitioner after the onset of monsoon (between June, 2025 to August, 2025), shall plant 100 saplings of local variety like mango, neem, tamarind etc. in and around her village over the Government land/ community land/ private land, if it is in the possession of the Petitioner or her family members. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 11. The District Nursery/D.F.O shall extend the helping hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner and the Revenue Authority shall assist the Petitioner in identifying the location for plantation of the saplings. If the land is not available, the Petitioner to approach the Revenue Authority for identifying the land for plantation and the Revenue Authority shall do the needful. 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 or not. Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-May-2025 13:37:07 13. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local Police Station assuring that she will maintain those plants for two years. The said affidavit be also produced before the learned court below at the time of trial. 14. The 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: 28-May-2025 13:37:07 Page 6 of 6