The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 9592 of 2024 Bapuni @ Sudhir Kumar Sahoo ..…... Petitioner Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. M.K. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 19.11.2024 Order No. 03. F.I.R No. 184 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 302 of the IPC 08.06.2020 Chauliaganj S.T. Case No.241 of 2021 pending in the of Court learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack 1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17 2. The petitioner being in custody in connection with Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.184 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Case No.241 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned 1st 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, 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 story as per FIR in short is that on 08.06.2020 at about 7.30 PM one Subasini Sahoo, W/o. Batakrushna Sahoo of Chauliaganj Thatatri Sahi appeared at Chauliaganj PS and presented a written report stating therein that on the same day at about 5.30 PM her niece staying at Talasahi in a rented house came to her house after preparing food for her nourishment as she was ill. During evening hour she again came to her house to bring back the utensils. The present Petitioner scolded her niece. Therefore, she cried and left home with disappointment. Thereafter, her husband went to the house of Chagala Babu and narrated the whole incident. So, he called his nephew but he did not respond. Subsequently, the present Petitioner came out of the house and assaulted her husband causing injury on his head and thereby attempted to commit murder. On hearing the noise, local people gathered at the spot for which the present Petitioner fled from the spot hurriedly. Hence, this case. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the case was initially registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but later on, since the deceased died, the charge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17 3 sheet was filed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2020. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be released on bail. 5. 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 is the just" procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and 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." it 6. He further argues that the period of long incarceration suffered, which entitle the Petitioner for grant of bail. Right to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17 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. 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. 7. 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17 1 (1981) 3SCC 671 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 5
Legal Reasoning
8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner. 9. 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 appear before the local police station once a week on Monday in between 10 A.M. to 12.00 Noon. iii. the Petitioner, shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties like mango, neem, tamarind etc., around his village on Government land/community land/private land, if it is in the possession of the Petitioner or his family members. In case of unavailability of land, the Revenue Authority shall assist to indentify the land for plantation. iv. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17 offence while on bail; and 6 v. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 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 the 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 a helping hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner.
Decision
13. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge Murmu ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17