Orissa High Court
Sura @ Suresh Chandra Sahu vs State Of Odisha on 10 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 11376 of 2023
Sura @ Suresh Chandra Sahu ........ Petitioner
Mr. L.N. Patel, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opposite Party
Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
10.11.2023
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Court's name
379 11.09.2019 Mancheswar C.T. Case Section
No.88 of 2020 302/120-
pending in B/114/212/34
the court of IPC
learned 3rd
Addl.
Sessions
Judge,
Bhubaneswar
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with
Mancheswar P.S. Case No.379 of 2019 corresponding to
C.T. Case No.88 of 2020 pending in the court of learned
3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for the
offences under Sections 302/120-B/114/212/34 of the
Indian Penal Code has filed this application for release
on bail.
4. The brief facts of the case is that on 10.09.2019 at
about 8.30 P.M. while Deepak Behera, the brother of the
informant, was closing his Tiffin stall at DHPL Square
Rangamatia, the accused petitioner along with the other
accused persons being armed with sword, bhujali, rod,
etc. attacked said Deepak from his behind causing
profuse bleeding. Hearing the scream of Deepak, his
father and other family members arrived and on seeing
them, the accused persons left the spot. The injured was
taken to hospital, where the doctor declared him dead.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is an innocent and no way connected in the
said offence. Though four witnesses out of thirty charge
sheeted witnesses including the eye witness named
Manguli Jena have been examined but none of them
have uttered a single incriminating word against the
petitioner. In addition to this, there is less likelihood of
completion of trial in near future as there are twenty six
witness are to be examined. The petitioner is inside
custody since 17.09.2019 which is around four years.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that 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 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 1wherein 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.
(1981) 3 SCC 671
8. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim
@ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 2that 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.
9. Learned counsel for the State though vehemently
opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner but concedes
the submission with regard to length of detention of the
petitioner in custody.
10. Without going into the merit of the matter and
considering the facts and submission made as well as
length of detention of the petitioner in custody, this
Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, it is directed that the court in seisin over
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023
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
concerned police station on every Monday in
between 10.00 AM to 1.00 PM till conclusion of
the trial:
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
Murmu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack
Date: 10-Nov-2023 18:22:15
