[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Shibani Naik vs State Of Odisha ........ Opposite Party on 17 December, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 12313 of 2025
Shibani Naik ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Akshya Sah, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha ........ Opposite Party
Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
17.12.2025
Order No.
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Station and Courts'
Name
155 22.08.2023 Nalco C.T. (S) Case Sections
Township No.222 of 365, 366,
2024 371(4),
pending in 376(D)/
the court of 109/ 506/
learned Ad- 34 IPC
hoc Addl. and
District & Sections
Sessions 25/27 of
Judge, Arms Act.
(FTSC),
Angul
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Nalco Township P.S. Case
No. 155 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. (S) Case No.222 of 2024
pending in the court of learned Ad-hoc Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, (FTSC), Angul, registered for the alleged
commission of offences under Sections 365,/366,371(4)/
376(D)/ 109/ 506/ 34 IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act, has
filed this petition for her release on bail.
4. The brief fact of the case is that on 22.08.2023 at 8.30 P.M. the
informant named Sibani Naik lodged a written report before
the Nalco Township P.S. alleging that on 21.08.2023 while she
along with her friend were coming from Angul Style Bazar
towards Balanda in a rented auto rickshaw, four persons
arrived at Kurudol Hanuman temple through motorcycle and
detained them. They kidnapped her friend Sibani Naik. Out
of four persons, she knows two persons named Kali and
Tuku, who are working at Kalpataru Hotel, Angul. Based on
the said report, Nalco Township P.S. Case No.155 of 2023 was
registered. Hence, this case.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in this
case ten witnesses have already been examined and the trial
has reached its fag end. He further submits that the victim
has already been examined. He further submits that the
Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and
there is no credible or incriminating material on record that
establishes her involvement in the alleged offences. The
petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.09.2023. In
view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. 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."
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 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
(1981) 3SCC 671
Signature NotSLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: P.A.
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 19-Dec-2025 19:47:06
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 vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail stating that the victim during her examination before
the court below as P.W.10 has categorically implicated the
present Petitioner to force her for prostitution and she was
bringing ten to twelve persons regularly who were
committing sexual intercourse with her. Whenever she was
suffering from pain, the Petitioner was giving her white
colour tablets. He further submits that the victim has been
threatened by the Petitioner.
10. Without delving into the merits of the case, and considering
the overall facts and circumstances, it is directed that the
petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case, subject to
stringent terms and conditions as may be deemed just and
proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter, along
with the following additional conditions:-
i. the Petitioner shall appear before the local Police
Station on every Monday between 10 A.M. to 1.00
P.M.;
ii. the petitioner shall not indulge herself in any
criminal offence while on bail; and
iii. the petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
iv. the Petitioner shall not intimidate the victim in any
manner. If such intimidation is done by the Petitioner,
the Police authority shall apply for cancellation of
bail.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
