The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 3744 of 2025 Rahul Kumar ..…... Petitioner Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 12.05.2025 Dated
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 120 20.11.2022 Kantabania G.R. Case No.1504 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge(Vigilance) Dhenkanal Section 302/120(B)/34- IPC - 25/27 of Arms Act and 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Kantabania P.S. Case No. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 11:49:39 120 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1504 of 2022 2 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge(Vigilance) Dhenkanal, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 302/120(B)/34 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. That prosecution case is that on 14.11.2022 the informant lodged an FIR before the Kantabania P.S. alleging that while he was working as crane operator in M/s Rakesh Kasapya Vendor, Tata Steel, Meramandali he received information about his brother-in-law named Rabi Kumar who was also working as crane operator in the same company since last two years. He further alleges that after finishing his night shift while his brother-in-law was going to the market, one unknown culprit near Talabahar village gave gun shoot injury. Thereafter, he was shifted to DHH hospital, Angul by 108 Ambulance for his treatment. Based on the said report, the Kantabania P.S. Case No.120 of 2022 was registered for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Hence, the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits there is no direct evidence against the present Petitioner with regard to his involvement in the alleged crime. The Petitioner has been entangled in this case on suspicion basing an extra judicial Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 11:49:39 Page 2 of 6 3 confession made by him. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2022. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble 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. 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 the necessary adequate expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." resources financial incur 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 11:49:39 Page 3 of 6 4 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 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)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. 1 (1981) 3SCC 671 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 11:49:39 Page 4 of 6 5 9. 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. 10. 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 each date of posting of the case; 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 (in between the months of July and August, 2025), 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 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 11:49:39 6 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 ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-May-2025 11:49:39 Page 6 of 6