The High Court
Case Details
s IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4383 of 2025 Hari @ Harekrushna Behera ..…... Petitioner Mr. Y.Parekh, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Mrs. J. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 13.05.2025 Order No. 01. Dated F.I.R No. Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 333 26.09.2020 Khurda U/S. 302 of the IPC Case G.R No.1103 of 2020 further corresponding to S.T No.34 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Additional 1st Judge, Sessions Khordha 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. The petitioner being in custody in connection with Khurda P.S. Case No.333 of 2020, corresponding to G.R Case Page 1 of 6 No.1103 of 2020, further corresponding to S.T Case No.34 of 2021, pending in the court learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khordha, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 25.09.2020 after the quarrel, the deceased was found dead at mother-in-law's house. Thereafter the complainant feels and links this case to the quarrel among the petitioner and the deceased. It is clear that the case was not of free fight and no question arises for taking any self-defence. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 30.09.2020. He further submits that as against total 30 prosecution witnesses, only 5 have been examined, and, therefore, the trial is not expected to be complete 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. 2 5. 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 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." 6. 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 under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including 3 in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where 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. 7. 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 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. 4 harm—especially if the accused is ultimately 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. 8. prayer. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the Without going to the merit of the matter, considering the facts and keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner and considering the detention period, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement of keeping the Petitioner inside the custody any further. Accordingly, this Court directs that the Petitioner be released on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. the petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.; the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal activities in future; the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner; 5 iv. the Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station that he would never engage in such criminal activities in future. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-May-2025 15:18:51 6