Kaibarta Naik vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 4288 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           BLAPL No.2204 of 2023

          Kaibarta Naik                          ....            Petitioner

                                                Mr. Suresh Kumar Jena,
                                                             Advocate

                                     -versus-
          State of Odisha                       ....         Opp. Party
                                                 Mr. G.R. Mohapatra,
                                         Additional Standing Counsel.



                  CORAM:
                  DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

  Order                                ORDER
  No.                                 25.04.2023

F.I.R. Dated     Police     Case No. and                 Sections
 No.             Station    Court's Name
0198 29.08.2019

Barpali C.T. Case 498A/ 506/ 302/ 304B/ 34 of the I.P.C.

No.62-63 of 2020-21 pending in the court of Addl.

Sessions Judge, Bargarh

03. 1. This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

// 2 //

3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with

Barpali P.S. Case No.198 of 2019 corresponding to C.T.

Case No.62-63 of 2020-21, pending in the court of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh, registered

for the alleged commission of offences under Sections

498A/ 506/ 302/ 304B/ 34 of the I.P.C., has filed this

application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for his release on

bail.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant

lodged a written report stating that on 26.06.2019, his

daughter Prabhati Pandey (Deceased') was married to the

Petitioner as per their custom prevalent in their caste.

During marriage, they gifted many household articles as

dowry to the Petitioner's family. However, the

Petitioner's family members were not satisfied with the

same and kept on assaulting the deceased both physically

and mentally. The deceased informed the Informant

regarding their demand, however, due to poor financial

condition, the Informant was not able to fulfill the same.

The accused persons threatened to kill the deceased, if

she would refuse to fulfill their demand. On 28.08.2019 at

about 5.00 P.M., the Petitioner informed him over

telephone that his daughter has received grievous injury

on her body. After receiving the news, the Informant

// 3 //

immediately reached their house and found his daughter

lying dead with burn injuries over her body. Thereafter,

the informant lodged the F.I.R. at the police station.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in this

case charge-sheet has already been submitted. The trial

has also been substantially progressed and some of the

witnesses have already been examined. But, they did not

support the case of the prosecution. He further submits

that the Petitioner is an innocent person having no nexus

with the alleged offences. Further, the allegations levelled

against the Petitioner are untrue, concocted and the

present F.I.R. has been lodged to harass the Petitioner. It

is also submitted that the deceased had an illicit

relationship with another person before marriage and she

had been in contact with that person even after marriage.

Due to this, there was tussle between the husband and

wife. On the date of occurrence, the Petitioner had

decided to inform the informant's family about the

situation and, therefore, the deceased committed suicide.

He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since

the date of his arrest i.e. on 30.08.2019. Hence, the

Petitioner is entitled to bail.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that

the Apex Court has held that right to have speedy trial is

// 4 //

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 Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1 wherein it has

been stated that the obligation of the State or the

1981)3 SCC 671

// 5 //

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, the application of the said NDPS

Rule is wholly inadvisable. 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.

SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023

// 6 //

9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the

prayer for bail of the Petitioner submitting that there is

clinching evidence against the Petitioner. As per the

statement of the mother of the deceased, there was

constant dowry demand and torture at the behest of the

Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner does not deserve to be

released on bail.

10. Without going into the merit of the case and

considering the submissions made, facts and

circumstances and the length of detention of the

Petitioner, 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. 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.

12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

// 7 //

13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

amit