The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.9714 of 2024 Laxman Malick @ Jilu @ Silu @ Dipu @ Deepak ..…... Petitioner Mr. Umesh Chandra Mohanty, Adv. State of Orissa …… Opposite Party -Versus- Mr. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 04.11.2024 Order No. 02. Dated F.I.R. No. 0029 30.01.2020 Pipili Police Station Sections Section 302/301/34 of I.P.C. Case No. and Court’s name S.T. Case No.27/59 of 2022 arising out of G.R. Case No.43 of 2020 corresponding to Pipili P.S. Case No.29 of 2020 pending in of court the 2nd learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri 2 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with S.T. Case No.27/59 of 2022 arising out of G.R. Case No.43 of 2020 corresponding to Pipili P.S. Case No.29 of 2020 pending in the court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri for the offences under Sections 302/301/34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed this application for release on bail. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Chandan Bhoi, Son of Karna Bhoi of Village- Baragada, Bhoisahi, P.S- Baragada, Dist- Khordha has lodged the F.I.R. before the I.I.C., Pipili Police Station alleging inter alia that his elder sister, aged about 29 years who maintained her livelihood by profession as maid and sometimes she stays at her work place. On 22.01.2020, she was absent from her house for a considerable period and after 2 to 3 days when the owner came to the house and asked about her sister, he came to know that she has 3 left house without any intimation. It is alleged that his sister was eloped with one guy named Silu Malik about seven to eight months back and left him on last Wednesday. On 30.01.2020, he came to know from Pipili Police that one female dead body was recovered. After that he and his family members visited the spot along with Pipili Police and came to know that the said Silu along with three to four of his associates had killed his sister. Hence, the Pipili Police took up investigation. 5. During the course of investigation, the present Petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Pipili on 08.02.2020. Since then the Petitioner is in jail custody at District Jail, Puri as certified by the Sub-Assistant Jailor. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the deposition made by the P.W.9 and P.W.11, the Petitioner has not directly been attributed to the offences alleged in the F.I.R. 7. He further submits that the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a very simple and innocent person and he has been falsely implicated 4 in this case. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 08.02.2020 and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 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." 5 9. 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 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. 10. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 that incarceration 1 1981)3 SCC 671 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 6 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. 11. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the Petitioner. 12. Without going into the merits of the matter and considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner and the stringent punishment provided, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner. However, considering the period of detention of the present Petitioner, the Petitioner be released on bail by the court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the 7 court in seisin over the matter with further condition that :- i. the Petitioner shall plant 50 saplings of local variety like mango, neem, tamarind etc. including the plants pertaining to mangrove variety around his village over the Government land/community land/private land, if it is in the possession of the Petitioner or his family members; ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal activities during the bail period; Violation of the above condition shall entail cancellation of the bail. 13. 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. 14. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local Police Station assuring that they shall maintain those plants for two years. The said affidavit along with the 8 monitoring report be also produced before the learned court below. 15. The District Nursery/D.F.O shall extend the helping hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner. Further, if there is non-availability of land for planting the sapling, the Revenue Authority shall help him by identifying some fallow land/ vacant land for plantation of such sapling. 16. It is also made clear that if any kind of behavioral aberration is found against the present Petitioner, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled.
Decision
17. 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: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Nov-2024 20:15:40