The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.14511 of 2023 Ganeswar Nayak State of Odisha …. Petitioner Mr. Arun Kumar Das (1), Adv. -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, AGA CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 06.02.2024 Sections Sections 304(A)/286/34 of I.P.C read with Section 3(a)/5(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Dated F.I.R. No. 0219 06.09.2020 Deogarh Deogarh Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name S.T. Case P.S. Case No.219 of 2020 corresponding to No.40-01/2020- 21 pending on the of file learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deogarh 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Feb-2024 16:29:28 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Deogarh P.S. Case No.219 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Page 1 of 6 // 2 // Case No.40-01/2020 pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 304(A)/286/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(a)/5(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, has filed this petition for their release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that one Santosh Patra and Ranjit Bhoi came to the informant’s village for some labour work. They stayed in the house of one Pabitra Mohan Patta. It was alleged that on 04.09.2020, Ranjit Bhoi went to village-Kansar and after few time, he returned back to the informant’s village. On 05.09.2020 at about 11 A.M, at the time of ploughing the land Pabitra Mohan Patta heard a blasting sound. Upon hearing such blasting, informant along with other rushed to the house of Pabitra Mohan Patta and found that the cattle-shed of Pabitra Mohan Patta was destroyed. Two persons were also found to be dead. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the co-accused Pabitra Mohan Patta has stated that he has obtained some gunpowder from the present Petitioner, the Police have not seized anything from the house of the present Petitioner. He further submits that it is only on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Feb-2024 16:29:28 basis of the said statement of the co-accused Pabitra Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Mohan Patta, the present Petitioner has been languishing in jail custody since 15.09.2020.
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contends that the co-accused/Pabitra Mohan Patta has already been released on bail in the meantime. He further submits that out of nineteen witnesses only seven witnesses have been examined as yet. 7. He further submits that the Petitioner is completely an innocent person and there is no iota of evidence against him. 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 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 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Feb-2024 16:29:28 // 4 // administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." 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 stated 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 has further deleterious effects where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Feb-2024 16:29:28 1 1981)3 SCC 671 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 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 though vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner, concedes the submission with regard to length of detention of the Petitioner in custody. 12. Without going into the merits of the case, considering the facts and submission made as well as factum of release of the co-accused and also the length of detention of Petitioner in custody, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the court in seisin over the matter shall release the Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Feb-2024 16:29:28 the Petitioner will appear before the court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of the case till completion of trial; the Petitioner shall not criminal activities in future; the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; indulge in any Page 5 of 6 // 6 // iv. v. the Petitioner shall not threaten the informant or any family members in any manner; the Petitioner shall not influence any witness; 13. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.
Decision
14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Ayaskanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Feb-2024 16:29:28 Page 6 of 6