Orissa High Court

Bapuni @ Sudhir Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 19 November, 2024

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                      BLAPL No. 9592 of 2024
                            Bapuni @ Sudhir Kumar Sahoo                         ........   Petitioner
                                                                         Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv.
                                                           -Versus-
                            State of Odisha                               .......... Opposite Party
                                                                            Mr. M.K. Mohanty, AGA

                                            CORAM:
                                            DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                                                           ORDER

19.11.2024 Order No.

03.


                     F.I.R Dated                Police           Case No. and Sections
                     No.                        Station          Courts' Name

                     184          08.06.2020 Chauliaganj         S.T.       Case 302 of the IPC

                                                                 pending in the
                                                                 Court        of
                                                                 learned      1st
                                                                 Additional
                                                                 Sessions Judge,
                                                                 Cuttack

1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.

2. The petitioner being in custody in connection with

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.184 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17 Case No.241 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned 1st

Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, registered for the alleged

commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC, has filed

this petition for his release on bail.

3. The prosecution story as per FIR in short is that on 08.06.2020

at about 7.30 PM one Subasini Sahoo, W/o. Batakrushna

Sahoo of Chauliaganj Thatatri Sahi appeared at Chauliaganj

PS and presented a written report stating therein that on the

same day at about 5.30 PM her niece staying at Talasahi in a

rented house came to her house after preparing food for her

nourishment as she was ill. During evening hour she again

came to her house to bring back the utensils. The present

Petitioner scolded her niece. Therefore, she cried and left

home with disappointment. Thereafter, her husband went to

the house of Chagala Babu and narrated the whole incident.

So, he called his nephew but he did not respond.

Subsequently, the present Petitioner came out of the house

and assaulted her husband causing injury on his head and

thereby attempted to commit murder. On hearing the noise,

local people gathered at the spot for which the present

Petitioner fled from the spot hurriedly. Hence, this case.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication case was initially registered under Section 307 of the Indian Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17 Penal Code but later on, since the deceased died, the charge

sheet was filed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since

13.06.2020. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be

released on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further 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."

6. He further argues that the period of long incarceration

suffered, which entitle the Petitioner for grant of bail. Right to

Digitally Signed Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an under trial prisoner

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication and this observations have been resonated, time and again, in Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17

several judgments including that of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v.

State of Bihar 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.

7. 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.

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date:119-Nov-2024 18:38:17 (1981) 3SCC 671

8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer

for bail of the Petitioner.

9. Without going into the merit of the case and based on the

facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of

detention of the Petitioner in custody, it is directed that the

Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with some

stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by

the learned court in seisin over the matter with further

conditions that:-

i. the Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on

each date of posting of the case;

ii. the Petitioner shall appear before the local police station

once a week on Monday in between 10 A.M. to 12.00 Noon.

iii. the Petitioner, shall plant 100 saplings of local

varieties like mango, neem, tamarind etc., around his

village on Government land/community land/private

land, if it is in the possession of the Petitioner or his

family members. In case of unavailability of land, the

Revenue Authority shall assist to indentify the land

for plantation.

iv. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication offence while on bail; and Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 19-Nov-2024 18:38:17

v. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses in any manner.