Orissa High Court
Runjha Dehury vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3643 of 2025
Runjha Dehury ........ Petitioner (s)
Mr. Chiranjib Rout, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
09.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR/PR Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
84 02.04.2021 Pallahara C.T. (S) Case Sections-
No.39 of 2021 302/201 of
pending in the the IPC
court of learned
Addl. Sessions
Judge, Talcher
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 Pallahara
P.S. Case No.84 of 2021 corresponding to C.T. (S) Case No.39 of
2021 pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Talcher, has filed the present application seeking release on bail.
The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable
under Sections- 302/201 of the IPC.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.04.2021 at 4.00
P.M one Akula Dehury lodged a written report before the IIC,
Pallahara P.S. alleging therein that one month before he along
with his elder son Sumitra Dehury and some villagers of his
village had been to Angul town for labour work. On the same
morning, he received information from his villagers that his
wife Smt. Putuki Dehury was murdered by his uncle's son
named Runja Dehury and concealed the dead body somewhere
else. After getting such information, he along with his son
arrived at his house and searched for his wife and finally found
the dead body of his wife lying on the verandah of the house of
Runjha Dehury. The dead body was covered with a thick cotton
sheet. He along with the villagers saw the dead body of his wife
(Putuki Dehury) at about 3.00 PM, and then he informed the
matter before Grama Rakhi, Suna Thakur of Vill.-Sibida. So, he
reported the matter for necessary legal action. Hence, this case.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has been arraigned in this case on the basis of
suspicion. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence. He further
submits that the Petitioner has been involved in this case as he
was involved in a previous rivalry where the deceased is the
aunt (Piusi) of the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner has
been languishing in custody since 03.04.2021. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner 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 Petitioner in
prolonged custody without commencement or conclusion of
trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of his
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
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
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
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 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
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
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 till conclusion of the trial.
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 (during
June, 2025 to August, 2025), shall plant 200 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.
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Narayan
