Orissa High Court
Jharia @ Netrananda Naik vs State Of Odisha on 6 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.6956 of 2020
Jharia @ Netrananda Naik .... Petitioner
Mr.R.K. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.Manoj Kumar Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
06.08.2021
Order No.
7. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing
mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with
S.T.Case No.29 of 2017 corresponding to Baramba
P.S.Case No.134 of 2016 pending in the court of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh, registered
for the alleged commission of offence under Sections
302/34 of the I.P.C., has filed this application under
Section 439 of CrPC for his release on bail.
4. The case, in nutshell, is that on 04. 10.2016 at about
5:00 PM when the informant was returning to his
house, he saw his brother Prafulla ('deceased') returning
to his house. Suddenly, the accused persons along with
the petitioner restrained the informant's brother and
assaulted him with deadly weapons. The deceased
sustained severe injuries and was immediately shifted
// 2 //
to Baramba Hospital wherein the doctors declared him
dead. Thereafter the informant has lodged this FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
Court in Criminal Revision No.465 of 2018 has stayed
the operation of the order dated 20.04.2018. In view of
that order, the petitioner is still languishing in custody
since 12.10.2016, even though only few witnesses are
left to be examined and substantial portion of the trial
is over.
6. He contended that the petitioner is in custody since
long and it defeats the purpose of criminal justice
system. In view of the judgment as laid down in
Hussainara Khatoon Vrs. State of Bihar reported in
1979 AIR 1819 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 the fundamental right of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed
the bail prayer of the petitioner.
8. Considering the submissions made, facts and
circumstances of the case, 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;
// 3 //
ii. he shall not indulge in similar
activities in future and
iii. he shall not tamper the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses in any
manner.
9. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
10. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
( S.K.Panigrahi )
Judge
Gs
