The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.11928 of 2022 Khitish Kumar Nandi @ …. Babu Petitioner Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, Adv. State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. D. Nayak, A.G.A. -versus- Order No.5 CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 08.01.2024 Sections 302/449/120(B)/109 of /457/380/34 I.P.C. Dated F.I. R. No. 0555 20.10.2020 Sadar S.T. Police Statio n Case No. and Courts’ Name Case of in No.198 2021 connection P.S. with Case No.555 of 2020 in pending the court of 1st learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cutack 1. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. // 2 // 3. The Petitioner is being in custody in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.555 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Case No.198 of 2021, pending before the court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cutack registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 302/449/120(B)/109/457/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.10.2020 at about 12.02 P.M., the informant received information that someone killed her sister and health condition is serious and when he heard the same immediately went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased Prabhasini Pradhan died on her bed. Then he suspected that her husband namely Gopal Behera committed murder to her sister. Hence, reported the matter for legal action. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 03.11.2020. Further, the petitioner submits that seven witnesses have been examined out of twenty-four witnesses and the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. He further submits that the petitioner was not the prime accused in this case rather he was only accompanied with the person who had given money to the supari killer. Since the petitioner spent such a Page 2 of 5 // 3 // long time which is more than three years, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 6. 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." 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 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 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. 8. 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. 1 1981)3 SCC 671 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner. 10. Having scrutinized the case record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, 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 learned trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii. he shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; and iii he shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 11. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. 13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Sumitra Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jan-2024 13:07:19 (Dr. S.K.Panigrahi) Judge Page 5 of 5