Orissa High Court
Rabi Sahu vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 2 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2869 of 2025
Rabi Sahu ........ Petitioner
Mr. Sasmita Nanda, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
02.05.2025 Order No.
01.
F.I.R Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
126 25.05.2020 Barkote C.T. Case No.234 U/s. 498-
of 2020 further A/302/34 of IPC
corresponding to read with
S.T Case No.31 of section 4 of D.P.
2020 pending in Act
the Court of
learned Sessions
Judge, Deogarh
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Barkote P.S. Case No.126 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No.234 of 2020 further corresponding to S.T Case No.31 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Deogarh and Page 1 of 6 registered for the alleged commission of offences under Section 498-A/302/34 of IPC read with section 4 of D.P. Act, has filed this petition seeking release on bail.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the deceased was the daughter in law of the present accused. The deceased daughter in law was married to the son of the accused since ten years back and at the time of marriage, house hold articles and jewellery were given to the deceased by her family members as per their capacity but after few years, the present accused and his son along with other family members started torturing the deceased on demand of dowry. It is alleged that one month prior to the alleged occurrence the deceased moved to her parental house due to unbearable torture. It is further alleged that three days before the occurrence the present petitioner and his son went to the house of the deceased had persuaded her to return to her in laws house and after much persuasion the deceased agreed and returned to her in laws house. On 24.05.2020 at about 11.20 PM the present accused along with his son sprinkled kerosene on the deceased and put her ablaze. As a result of which the deceased was completely burnt and succumbed to burn injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and being arrested in the case is in custody since 27.12.2022 and in the 2 meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted. He further submits that the petitioner is aged about 74 years and he is suffering from severe old-age disease. In view of all these above, he urges that further detention of the Petitioner in custody would serve no useful purpose.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, keeping the petitioner in prolonged custody without commencement or conclusion of trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights. 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."
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the 3 right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker sections of society and often lack access to competent legal assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that incarceration has particularly harsh and far- reaching consequences for individuals from the weakest 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671.
2SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
4 economic strata. It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts irreparable harm--especially if the accused is ultimately acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are prioritized and concluded expeditiously.
8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail.
9. Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the petitioner's custody, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case subject to stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned Court in seisin over the matter, with the further condition that:-
i. The petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM.
ii. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail.
iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.5
iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on Government land, community land, or private land in the possession of the petitioner or his family members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying land for the plantation.
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 as required.
11. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants for a period of two years.
12. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings.
13. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Judge Gitanjali Location: OHC Date: 07-May-2025 18:37:25 6