Orissa High Court
Arun Munda & Ors vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 23 April, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 2288 of 2025
Arun Munda & Ors. ........ Petitioner
Mr. Sandeep Raj Panda, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
23.04.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Stationand Courts'
Name
147 15.10.2023 Pandapada S.T. Case Sections
No.26 of 302 of IPC
pending in
the court of
learned
Sessions
Judge,
Keonjhar
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Reason: Authentication 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
Location: OHC
Date: 25-Apr-2025 19:18:38
3. The petitioners, who are presently in custody in connection
with Pandapada P.S. Case No. 147 of 2023, corresponding to
S.T. Case No. 26 of 2024 pending before the learned Sessions
Judge, Keonjhar, have filed the present application seeking bail.
The case pertains to allegations under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. The case of the prosecution is that, based on a written report
lodged by the informant, Rahash Munda, at Pandapada Police
Station, it is alleged that on 15.10.2023 at around 3:25 PM, he
reported the unnatural death of his elder father, Rama Munda,
who was employed as a daily labourer. According to the
informant, his elder father was last seen loitering in the village
on the previous day around 10:00 AM, as observed by several
villagers. On the morning of 15.10.2023, at approximately 9:00
AM, the informant received information that his elder father
was found dead near Baghabindhasahi at the foothills of
Hatitangar Hill in village Kamarguda. Upon reaching the spot,
the informant found the body lying naked, bearing visible
bleeding injuries. His half-pant and vest were found discarded
at a short distance from the body. It is alleged that an unknown
person or persons committed the murder by assaulting the
Reason: Authentication deceased.
Location: OHC
Date: 25-Apr-2025 19:18:38
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is a simple and innocent individual who has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 17.10.2023 and that the
Investigating Officer has already submitted the charge sheet on
13.02.2024. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be
released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a
speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, continued
incarceration of the petitioner for an extended period without
conclusion of trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of
his fundamental rights. 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
Digitally Signed speedy trial to the accused on the ground that the State has no
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU adequate financial resources to incur the necessary
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 25-Apr-2025 19:18:38
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 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 a significant majority of the accused
belong to economically and socially disadvantaged sections of
society and often lack awareness of legal rights or access to
competent legal assistance, the right to a speedy trial assumes
even greater importance. While in a given case, an accused
person's express demand for a speedy trial may weigh in their
favour, the absence of such a demand cannot be used to deny or
dilute their right. An accused cannot be deprived of the
protection guaranteed under the right to a speedy trial merely
because they did not expressly assert or insist upon it.
1 19:18:38
(1981) 3SCC 671
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.
9. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners are
alleged to be involved in the commission of a heinous offence of
murder. Accordingly, he strongly opposes the prayer for grant
of bail.
10. 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 Petitioners in custody, it is directed that the
Petitioners 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:-
2 19:18:38
i. the Petitioners shall appear before the trial court
on each date of posting of the case;
ii. the Petitioners shall not indulge themselves in any
criminal offence while on bail; and
iii. the Petitioners shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
iv. The Petitioners, after the onset of monsoon, shall
plant 100 saplings each of local varieties, such as
mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around their village on
government land, community land, or private land in
the possession of the petitioners or their family
members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable,
the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying land
for the plantation.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation
of the bail.
11. The I.I.C. of the concerned police station, in coordination
with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the
Petitioners have planted the saplings as required.
12. It is further directed that the Petitioners shall file an affidavit
before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have
been planted and that the petitioners will maintain those plants
for a period of two years.
13. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall
extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary
saplings.
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
