Orissa High Court
Jitendra Kumar Patra vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 5 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3246 of 2025
Jitendra Kumar Patra ........ Petitioner
Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Smt. J. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
05.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. and Courts' Sections
No. Station Name
0116 08.03.2023 Jagatpur S.T. Case No.123 of Sections
2024 arising out of 294/506/354/307
P.S. Case No.116 of /323/302/34 of
2023 pending in the IPC
court of learned 1st
Additional Sessions
Judge, Cuttack
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 S.T. Case
No.123 of 2024 arising out of P.S. Case No.116 of 2023 pending
in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack,
registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections
294/506/354/307/323/302/34 of IPC has filed this petition for his
release on bail.
4. The prosecution case, in brief is that the informant namely
Umesh Gupta presented a written report before the LLC of
Jagatpur Police Station alleging therein that on 08.03.2023 while
his family members were playing Holi, accused Pintu came
there and misbehaved his female members. When the elder
brother of the informant protested it, the said accused left the
spot by abusing them. Thereafter, he along with other accused
persons again came to the spot, assaulted the family members
of informant and one Jogendra Sao. The accused persons also in
order to commit murder assaulted one Badri Prasad by means
of an iron rod to his head and he became senseless. Later the
said injured Badri Prasad died in the hospital. Pursuant to the
written information of the informant, the case was registered
and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was
submitted against the accused persons.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner
was not directly involved in this case. He further submits that
the Petitioner is in custody since 10.03.2023. He further submits
that 1 to 7 witnesses have been examined and the material
witnesses turned hostile. 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
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
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
(1981) 3SCC 671
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 of the Petitioners.
10. 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.
v. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant
200 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem,
tamarind, etc., around the Tangi Police Station In the
event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue
Authority shall assist in identifying the land for
plantation.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to
cancellation of the bail.
8. The District Nursery/D.F.O. shall extend the helping hand by
supplying the saplings to the Petitioner and the Revenue
Authority shall assist the Petitioner in identifying the land for
plantation of the saplings around the Tangi Police Station. If the
land is not available, the Petitioner to approach the Revenue
Authority for identifying the land for plantation and the
Revenue Authority shall do the needful.
9. 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.
10. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an
affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local Police
Station assuring that they shall maintain those plants for two
years.
11. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
