Orissa High Court
Prasanna Kumar Hans vs State Of Odisha on 30 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.8342 of 2021
Prasanna Kumar Hans .... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Dasparida, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 30.09.2022
.
1. The Petitioner is in custody in connection with Komna
P.S. Case No.87/2018 which corresponding to C.T Case
No.87 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned GMA
cum-JMFC, Komna and after commitment renumbered
as S.T. Case No.61/24 of 2018 now pending in the Court
of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Nuapada for commission of offences under Sections
498(A)/304(B)/306 of IPC read with Section 4 of D.P Act.
2. The prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is that the
daughter ("deceased") of the informant got married to
// 2 //
the present petitioner in the year 2017 as per caste and
custom. It is alleged that after few months of the
marriage, the present petitioner along with other family
members tortured the deceased by demanding more
dowry. It is also alleged that on 03.05.2018 the deceased
had intimated the informant about the torture by the
present petitioner. Further, on 4.05.2018 the informant
came to the house of the present petitioner after getting
information that he had killed the deceased.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that
on the alleged date, the petitioner was not present in the
house. The deceased was suffering from mental ailments
and she committed suicide by hanging herself.
Moreover, the petitioner tried his level best to save the
deceased by taking her to the hospital and affording
better treatment.
4. Learned Counsel further contended that as per the Post
Mortem Report, Doctor opined the cause of death to be
asphyxia due to hanging and no injury was found on
the body of the deceased. In the meantime, the charge-
sheet has already been submitted. On bare perusal of the
F.I.R., 161 statements and other related documents,
prima facie, the basic ingredients of the offences as stated
above are not at all attributed against the petitioner in
// 3 //
any manner whatsoever. Of course, the detailed trial can
only dig out the truth therein.
5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the State vehemently
opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the death
of the deceased has occurred within one year of
marriage of the petitioner with the deceased. Therefore,
a prima facie case can be attributed to the petitioner with
regard to the killing of his wife.
6. Additionally, the petitioner had earlier approached this
Court vide BLAPL No.6322 of 2019 and this Court had
dismissed the application on 22.12.2020 while directing
the learned trial court to expedite the Trial. However,
around 20 months have lapsed but the trial has not been
concluded yet. The petitioner has been languishing in
custody 07.05.2018. Therefore, considering the above
facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that he may be released on bail
u/s.439 of Cr.P.C.
7. In the facts of the present case, on an assessment of the
material on record, this court of the prima facie view that
the petitioner may not have committed the offence that
he is charged with. Further, considering the past history
of the Petitioner and absence of any criminal
// 4 //
antecedents, there is nothing on record to suggest that
he is likely to commit an offence while on bail.
8. 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 Bihar1, 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 administrative and judicial
apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy
trial."
1979 AIR 1369
// 5 //
9. In Khadra Paharia v. State of Bihar2 , this Court re-
affirmed the principle of Hussainara Khatoon (supra)
case and declared that:
"....any accused who is denied this right of
speedy trial is entitled to approach this Court
for the purpose of enforcing such right and this
Court in discharge of its constitutional
obligation has the power to give necessary
directions to the State Governments and other
appropriate authorities for securing this right
to the accused...."
10.Considering the submissions made, facts and
circumstances, perusal of the case record, the Petitioner
makes out a fit case for grant of bail and it is directed
that the Petitioner be released on bail with some
stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and
proper by the court in seisin over the matter in the
aforesaid case 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 in similar activities in
future; and
iii. he shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
11. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
AIR1981SC939
// 6 //
12.It is made clear that observations made in this order for
allowing the prayer for bail will not be treated as
expression of any opinion on merits of the case and the
learned trial Court shall decide the case without being
influenced by any such observations.
13.The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
14.Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
B.Jhankar
