The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 11376 of 2023 Sura @ Suresh Chandra Sahu ..…... Petitioner Mr. L.N. Patel, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha …… Opposite Party Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 10.11.2023 Order No. 01. Dated FIR No. 379 11.09.2019 Mancheswar C.T. Police Station Case No. and Court’s name Case No.88 of 2020 pending in the court of learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar Sections Section 302/120- B/114/212/34 IPC 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Mancheswar P.S. Case No.379 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.88 of 2020 pending in the court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for the offences under Sections 302/120-B/114/212/34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed this application for release on bail. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 10.09.2019 at about 8.30 P.M. while Deepak Behera, the brother of the informant, was closing his Tiffin stall at DHPL Square Rangamatia, the accused petitioner along with the other accused persons being armed with sword, bhujali, rod, etc. attacked said Deepak from his behind causing profuse bleeding. Hearing the scream of Deepak, his father and other family members arrived and on seeing them, the accused persons left the spot. The injured was taken to hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent and no way connected in the said offence. Though four witnesses out of thirty charge sheeted witnesses including the eye witness named Manguli Jena have been examined but none of them 3 have uttered a single incriminating word against the petitioner. In addition to this, there is less likelihood of completion of trial in near future as there are twenty six witness are to be examined. The petitioner is inside custody since 17.09.2019 which is around four years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 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 the financial resources necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." incur to 4 7. 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 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. 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671 5 8. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 2that 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. 9. Learned counsel for the State though vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner but concedes the submission with regard to length of detention of the petitioner in custody. 10. Without going into the merit of the matter and considering the facts and submission made as well as length of detention of the petitioner in custody, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the court in seisin over 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 6 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 concerned police station on every Monday in between 10.00 AM to 1.00 PM till conclusion of the trial: 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 11. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 10-Nov-2023 18:22:15