[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kisan @ Babu Behera vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 18 December, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.12860 of 2025
Kisan @ Babu Behera ........ Petitioner
Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
18.12.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
0326 22.08.2021 Saheed Saheed Nagar Sections
Nagar P.S. Case No.326 302/201/34 of
of 2021 I.P.C.
corresponding to
C.T. Case No.14
of 2022 pending
in the court of
learned 2nd Addl.
Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsels for the Parties.
3. The Petitioner is in custody in connection with Saheed Nagar
P.S. Case No.326 of 2021 corresponding to C.T. Case No.14 of
2022 pending in the court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar, registered for the alleged commission of offences
under Sections 302/201/34 of I.P.C., has filed this petition for his
release on bail.
4. The brief story of the case is that on 22.08.2021, one Chitta
Ranjan Rout, S.I. of Saheed Nagar Police Station lodged one
written F.I.R. before the I.I.C., Saheed Nagar Police Station
alleging therein that Saheed Nagar P.S. Case No.41 dated
06.08.2021 was registered during its inquiry, the informant
came to know that deceased Trinath Sethy was addicted to drug
and he was admitted by the family members at Krupa
Foundation Drugs Rehabilitation Centre, Kesura on 05.08.2021.
While the deceased Trinath Sethy along with four others
escaped from the said center to the stair case, but, the employee
of Rehabilitation Centre apprehended two persons. However,
the Trinath Sethy, Khirod Jena and Trilochan Nath managed to
escape and subsequently, Trinath Sethy was apprehended near
Kuakhai river embankment. Thereafter, both the employees i.e.
the present Petitioner and Ritik assaulted him and brought back
to the center. Thereafter, the Trinath Sethy was mercilessly
assaulted and in the late night he suffered from fits disease. In
such event, the employees of the said Rehabilitation Centre
were taken him to Capital Hospital. But, there he declared dead.
Hence, the F.I.R.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the co-
accused person has been released on bail. He further submits
that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Out of 26
witnesses only 12 witnesses has been examined and they are
almost hostile. He further submits that the Petitioner is a young
boy and he is in custody since 16.09.2021. Hence, he submits
that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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
(1981) 3SCC 671
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.
8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail of the Petitioner emphasizing the seriousness of
allegation.
9. Without going into the merit of the case and based on the
facts and circumstances of the case and considering 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 till the end of trial.
iii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any
criminal offence while on bail; and
iv. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to
cancellation of the bail.
10. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIgh Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Dec-2025 18:16:35
