Orissa High Court
Buda @ Buti Suna vs Unknown on 9 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2177 of 2023
Buda @ Buti Suna .... Petitioner
Mr.S.S.Ray(2), Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp.Party
Mr. G.R. Mohapatra,
Additional Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 09.05.2023
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
120 17.12.2019
Ambadola C.T. Case 498-A/302/34 of the Indian Penal
No.16 of 2020 Code
pending in the
court of 1st
Addl.Sessions
Judge,
Gunupur
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
// 2 //
3. The petitioner is an accused in C.T. Case No.16 of 2020
arising out of Ambadola P.S.Case No.120 of 2019 pending
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gunupur
registered for commission of offence under Sections 498-
A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner being a
married person had further got married to the daughter
of the informant. It is further alleged that the petitioner
his first wife Dhanamati Suna subjected the deceased to
mental torture and harassment and committed murder of
the deceased Hemalata Suna who was the second wife.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
deceased had earlier married to Mohan Chandra Rout on
09.03.2014 of village Isnola but in the year 2017 the
deceased developed love relationship with the present
petitioner during subsistence of her marriage to Mohan.
She eloped with the present petitioner and both stayed in
a rented house. Since the petitioner did not inform the
deceased about the fact of having his first wife and
children, it led to huge mental turmoil for the deceased.
Consequently, the deceased committed suicide by
hanging herself on a tree.
6. It is further submitted that the trial is going on and
though as many as seven witnesses have been examined
// 3 //
out of eighteen charge sheeted witnesses, all of them have
turned hostile. It will take more time to complete the trial
after examination of other remaining witnesses. The
Petitioner is in custody since 01.05.2020.
7. 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."
8. Without going into the merit of the case and
considering the submissions made coupled with the
// 4 //
length of detention of the Petitioner in custody since
01.05.2020 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 criminal offence
while on bail and
iii. he shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
` Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
LB
