The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5695 of 2023 Petitioner Rabi Sabar Mr. Shanti Prakash Mohanty, Adv. -versus- …. State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. F.I.R. No. 17 Dated Police Station
Decision
ORDER 17.08.2023 Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 25.02.2019 Gunupur C.T. Case of No.09 2020 pending in the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Puri Section 147/148/450/325/ 302/201/506/149 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4(1) of Odisha of Witch Prevention Hunting Act 1. This matter is taken up by hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The petitioner being in custody in connection with Gunupur P.S. case No.17 of 2019 corresponding to C.T.case Page 1 of 5 // 2 // No. 09 of 2020 pending in the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Rayagada for the offences under Sections 147/148/450/325/302/201/506/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4(1) of Odisha Prevention of Witch Hunting Act has filed this application for release on bail. 4. The brief facts of the case is that while the parents of the informant were sleeping in the night of 22/23.02.2019 the accused persons including the petitioner murdered them suspecting of practicing witchcraft in the village. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although name of another Rabi Sabar in the village of the petitioner is reflected in the FIR, the petitioner was arrested due to misidentification and as such the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 01.03.2019. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner is completely an innocent person and there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner. He has also no criminal antecedent. Though the nine materials witnesses including the informant have been examined, none of them have uttered a single incriminating word against the petitioner. Some of the co-accused have already been released on bail by order dated 21.05.2020 in BLAPL No. 8188 of 2019 and order dated 12.01.2021 in BLAPL No.8204 of 2019. // 3 // 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 adequate financial resources to incur the necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." 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 Bihar1 wherein it has been held that the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case 1 1981)3 SCC 671 // 4 // 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. 9. 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. 10. Learned counsel for the State though vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner but concedes the 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 // 5 // submission with regard to length of detention of the petitioner in custody. 11. Without going into the merit of the matter and considering the facts and submission made as well as factum of release of co-accused and length of detention of petitioner in custody, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the court in seisin over the matter shall release the Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. the Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting; ii he shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail: iii. he shall not threaten the informant or any family members in any manner and iv. he shall not influence any witness 12. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Sumitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa HIgh Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2023 12:15:42