The High Court
Case Details
s IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.8853 of 2025 Tika @ Paresh Mohapatra ..…... Petitioner Mr. S. Mohapatra, Senior Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC Order No. 01. F.I.R No. 121 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 20.09.2025 Dated Police Station Case No. Courts’ Name and Sections 27.08.2013 Markat Nagar U/S. 302/201/506/ 34 of IPC S.T Case No.397 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Cuttack Judge, 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The petitioner being in custody in connection with Markat Nagar P.S. Case No.121 of 2013, corresponding to S.T Case No.397 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, registered for the alleged commission of offence Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Sep-2025 17:50:53 Page 1 of 7 under Section 302/201/506/34 of IPC, as filed this petition for his release on bail. 3. The Petitioner’s case in brief is that the deceased sister of the informant married to one Sunanda Mishra on 4th March, 1998 and, thereafter, she proceeded to USA along with her husband on 30.05.1998 and stayed there. Due to health problem of her husband, both of them returned to India and by that time they were blessed with a male child. It is further alleged that the deceased who was the sister of the informant who joined as a Teacher in St. Xavier School, Patia. During course of service, she came in contact with the Petitioner and it is alleged that at the instance of the Petitioner the deceased joined in Oxford International School, Niali. Thereafter, joined as a prince OM International School at Patnagarh in the district of Balangir. Further, allegation reveals that on 2nd week of July 2015, the deceased came to the informant’s house and stayed there for four days and the deceased informed that he would likely to transfer to Cuttack or Bhubaneswar by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the informant learnt that the petitioner and the deceased were residing in rented accommodation at C.D.A., Sector-10, Cuttack and, later she disappeared. The family members of the informant could not tress her out. Thereafter, the informant came and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Sep-2025 17:50:53 Page 2 of 7 contacted with the Petitioner at St. Xavier School, Barbati, Cuttack and when asked the petitioner he failed to divulge about where about of the deceased. Being asked repeatedly, the Petitioner threatened the informant stating that he had killed the deceased and burnt her dead body. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 27.08.2013 and in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted on 20.12.2013. He further submits that out of 28 prosecution witnesses, only 16 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 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. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Sep-2025 17:50:53 Page 3 of 7 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 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 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Sep-2025 17:50:53 Page 4 of 7 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 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. 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Sep-2025 17:50:53 Page 5 of 7 8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner. 9. Considering the facts and keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner and considering the long detention period, without going into the merit of the case, 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 in the aforesaid case by the Court in seisin over the matter on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. iv. the petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on 1st Monday of every month between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till the conclusion of the trial; 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; the petitioner shall plant 100 saplings of local variety like mango, neem, tamarind etc. around his village over the Government land/community land/private land, if it is in the possession of the Petitioner or his family members; Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Sep-2025 17:50:53 Page 6 of 7 10. 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. 11. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local Police Station assuring that he shall maintain those saplings for two years. 12. The District Nursery/D.F.O. shall extend the helping hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner. 13. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Sep-2025 17:50:53 Page 7 of 7