Suresh Lugun vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 8880 Ori

                                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                         BLAPL No.2478 of 2023
                                          Suresh Lugun               ....               Petitioner
                                                                       Mr.Jayadeba Behera, Adv.
                                                                -versus-
                                          State of Odisha            ....          Opposite Party
                                                                          Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC

                                                   CORAM:
                                                   DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                  Order                              ORDER
                                  No.                               09.08.2023

                                          Dated   Police    Case No.             Sections
                              F.I.R.
                                                  Station and Courts'
                               No.
                                                              Name
                              120      15.06.2020 Bisra    S.T.Case    Section 417/313/506/376(2)(n)

No.11/22 of of the Indian Penal Code. 2021 in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela

01. 1. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutackt Date: 10-Aug-2023 19:11:25 // 2 //

3. The petitioner is an accused in S.T. Case No.11/22

of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.724 of 2020 arising

out of Bisra P.S. Case No.120 of 2020 pending in the Court

of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela

registered for the offences under Sections

417/313/506/376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.

4. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner kept illicit

relationship with the victim on false assurance of

marriage and aborted her pregnancy after being

conceived. Further, the petitioner threatened the

prosecutrix when she wanted to marry him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

Investigation of case has been completed and charge

sheet has been submitted. The prosecutrix is a 20 year old

girl. She kept physical relationship with the petitioner out

of her own. When the petitioner refused her proposal for

marriage with him, she foisted a false case. Apart from

that, the petitioner shall abide by any terms and

conditions in the event of his release on bail. He has been

languishing in jail custody since 10.09.2021 which is

around two years.

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutackt Date: 10-Aug-2023 19:11:25 // 3 //

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Hon'ble 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 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

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutackt Date: 10-Aug-2023 19:11:25 // 4 //

Bihar1 wherein it has been held 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.

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

1981)3 SCC 671

SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutackt Date: 10-Aug-2023 19:11:25 // 5 //

in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions,

are taken up and concluded speedily.

9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes

the bail prayer of the petitioner.

10. Without going into the merit of the matter and

considering the facts and submission made, 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 Bisra Police Station on every Monday between 10 A.M. to 1 P.M.;

ii he shall not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail:

iii. he shall not threaten the informant or any family members in any manner and iv. he shall not influence any witness

11. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail

cancellation of the bail.

12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge LB

Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutackt Date: 10-Aug-2023 19:11:25