Orissa High Court

Babuna Nath @ Nutan Nath vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 7 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                       BLAPL No.3442 of 2025

            Babuna Nath @ Nutan Nath             ........    Petitioner (s)
                                              Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik, Adv.
                                  -Versus-

            State of Odisha                     ..........     Opposite Party
                                                 Mr. Pradipta Satapthy, ASC

                       CORAM:
                       DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                                  ORDER

07.05.2025 Order No.

01.

            FIR/PR Dated         Police       Case     No.     and Sections
            No.                  Station      Courts' Name

            105      14.07.2023 Gurudijh      C.T. Case No.369 of    Section
                                atia          2023, corresponding    498-A,
                                              to S.T Case No.06 of   304-B, 306,
                                              2024 pending in the    and 34 of
                                              court of learned       the IPC
                                              Additional Sessions
                                              Judge, Athagarh

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Gurudijhatia

P.S. Case No.105 of 2023, corresponding to C.T Case No.369 of

2023, further corresponding to S.T. Case No.06 of 2024, pending

in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh, has

been registered for alleged offences punishable under Section

498-A, 304-B, 306, and 34 of the IPC.

4. The brief facts of the case is that on 14.07.2023 at about 11:10

A.M one Pramod Patra, the informant presented a written

report, at Gurudijhatia P.S., alleging therein that 12.12.2021, the

marriage of his daughter Pravati Patra, the deceased was

solemnized with the present petitioner as per the Hindu rites

and customs and at the time of marriage as per the demand of

the in-laws of the deceased, a cash of Rs.3 lakhs lakhs along

with Gold Ornaments and other house hold articles were given

as dowry to the in-laws. It is further alleged that demanding

more dowry to the deceased, the petitioner along with other in-

laws of the deceased, were torturing her both physically and

mentally. It is further alleged that on 14.07.2023 the sister-in-law

of the deceased telephoned him that the deceased was shifted to

hospital and requested him to come. When the informant

arrived at the house of the petitioner, came to know that the

deceased was taken to hospital by the petitioner and other

family members. Hence the informant suspects the petitioner

and other family members of him might have committed

murder of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been languishing in custody since 16.07.2023 and the charge

sheet has been submitted on 30.10.2023. He further submits that

as against total 33 prosecution witnesses, only 10 have been

examined, and, therefore, the trial is not expected to be so soon.

He further submits that for such long detention of the Petitioner

in custody when the trial is progressing at a snail's space and no

such step is being taken by the prosecution to expedite the

same, further detention of the Petitioner in custody is not

warranted. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays

that the bail application of the petitioner may be favourbaly

considered and he may be allowed to go on bail in the interest

of justice.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a

speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21

of the Constitution. Therefore, keeping the petitioners in

prolonged custody without commencement or conclusion of

trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of their

fundamental rights. 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. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the

prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him

to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right

to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every

undertrial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This

principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State

of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where

(1981) 3 SCC 671.

applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that

criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable

promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion

of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker

sections of society and often lack access to competent legal

assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by

the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the

accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand

does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this

right.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v.

State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that

incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching

consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata.

It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family

structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in

such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts

irreparable harm--especially if the accused is ultimately

SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.

acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to

these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those

arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are

prioritized and concluded expeditiously.

9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer

for bail.

10. Without entering into the merits of the case, and

considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration

of the petitioner's custody, it is directed that the petitioner be

released on bail in the aforesaid case subject to stringent terms

and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court

seized of the matter, with the further condition that:-

i. The petitioner shall appear before the local Police

Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM.

ii. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any

criminal offence while on bail.

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or

intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

iv. The petitioner, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant

100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem,

tamarind, etc., around his village on government land,

community land, or private land in the possession of the

petitioner or his family members. In the event that

suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall

assist in identifying land for the 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 as required.

12. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit

before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have

been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants

for a period of two years.

13. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall

extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary

saplings.