Orissa High Court
Bhima Madhi vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 21 February, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 652 of 2025
Bhima Madhi ........ Petitioner
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
21.02.2025
Order No.
03.
F.I.R Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
16 29.08.2023 Malkangiri C.T. Case 302/201/34 of
Sadar No.03 of 2024 the IPC
pending in the
Court of
learned
Sessions Judge,
Malkangiri
1. This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.
2. The petitioner being in custody in connection with Malkangiri
Digitally Signed Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication No.03 of 2024, pending in the court of the learned Sessions
Location: OHC
Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14
Judge, Malkanagiri, registered for the alleged commission of
offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC, has filed this
petition for his release on bail.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 29.08.2023 one Ganga
Madkami lodged an F.I.R before the Police stating that
somebody had hanged the dead body of his brother named
Deba Madkami. It is alleged that there was dispute in
between Muka Madhi and the deceased, for which the
deceased assaulted the wife of Muka Madhi. Thereafter, it is
alleged that the Petitioner along with others had assaulted the
deceased and hanged in a tree.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is no
way connected with the offences as alleged by the prosecution
in any manner. He further submits that the Petitioner is in
custody since 31.08.2023. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner
may be enlarged 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
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the case of
Location: OHC
Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14
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
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
Digitally Signed speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication factor in his favour. But an accused cannot be disentitled from
Location: OHC
Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14
(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 submits that the Petitioner is
alleged to have been involved in heinous crime of murder. He
further submits that the statement of the informant recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveals that prima facie case is
well made out against the present Petitioner for commission
of the alleged offences. Hence, he vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail.
9. Without going into the merit of the case and considering the
role of the present Petitioner which is quite hazy because of
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
the facts presented before the I.O. and also in the statement of
Location: OHC
Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14
the informant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 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 not indulge himself in any criminal
offence while on bail;
iv. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in any manner; and
v. 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
Designation: Personal Assistant
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail
Location: OHC
Date: 21-Feb-2025 19:01:14
cancellation of the bail.
10. The I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station, in coordination
with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the
Petitioner has planted the saplings or not.
11. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an
affidavit after the plantation of the saplings before the local
Police Station, assuring that he shall maintain those saplings
for two years.
12. The District Nursery/D.F.O. shall extend a helping hand by
supplying the saplings to the Petitioner.
13. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
Designation: Personal Assistant
