Orissa High Court
Sukra Kabasi vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 2 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 10137 of 2024
Sukra Kabasi ........ Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Panda, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
02.01.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Station and Courts'
Name
180 05.06.2020 Malkangiri C.T. Case Sections 295-
No.101 of A/364/120-
2022 B/302/201/506/34
pending in of IPC
the court of
learned
Sessions
Judge,
Malkangiri
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Digitally Signed 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
Location: OHC 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Malkangiri P.S. Case No.
Date: 02-Jan-2025 19:15:01
180 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.101 of 2022, pending
in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Malkangiri registered
for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 295-
A/364/120-B/302/201/506/34 of IPC has filed this petition for his
release on bail.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.06.2020, one Unga
Madkami had presented a written report alleging therein that
his family members had adopted Christianity which was
opposed by the villagers. On 04.06.2020 at about 11.00 P.M.,
some villagers named Deba Madkami, Budra Muchaki, Aita
Kabasi and Ramu Madi and some others came to the house of
his cousin brother named Samaru Madkami and took him into
the jungle to attend an urgent meeting. At about 12 midnight,
some of them again came to his house being armed with deadly
weapons and took him into the jungle to attend the said
meeting. But out of fear, he managed to escape from their clutch
and reported at police station for taking necessary action. Based
on the said report lodged by the informant, a case was
registered vide Malkangiri P.S. Case No. 180 of 2020 against the
accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 295-
A/364/120-B/302/201/506/34 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner
is a very simple and innocent person and he has been falsely
Location: OHC
Date: 02-Jan-2025 19:15:01
implicated in this case. He further submits that the Petitioner is
in custody since 07.06.2020. He further submits that in the
meantime charge sheet has already been submitted by the I.O.
on 04.10.2020. Hence, he submits 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
Digitally Signed suffered, which entitle the Petitioner for grant of bail. Right to
Reason: Authentication Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an under trial prisoner
Location: OHC
Date: 02-Jan-2025 19:15:01
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 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 -
(1981) 3SCC 671
Location: OHC
Date: 02-Jan-2025
2 19:15:01
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 of the Petitioner.
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 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; and
iv. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
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.
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
Petitioner has planted the saplings or not.
12. 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.
13. The District Nursery/D.F.O. shall extend a helping hand
by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner.
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Murmu 19:15:01
