Orissa High Court
Rahul Kumar vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 12 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 3744 of 2025
Rahul Kumar ........ Petitioner
Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
12.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
120 20.11.2022 Kantabania G.R. Case Section
No.1504 of 2022 302/120(B)/34-
pending in the IPC and -
court of learned 25/27 of Arms
Additional Act
Sessions Judge-
cum-Special
Judge(Vigilance)
Dhenkanal
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Kantabania P.S. Case No.
120 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1504 of 2022
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 27-May-2025 11:49:39
pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge(Vigilance) Dhenkanal, registered for the alleged
commission of offence under Section 302/120(B)/34 of IPC and
25/27 of Arms Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.
4. That prosecution case is that on 14.11.2022 the informant
lodged an FIR before the Kantabania P.S. alleging that while he
was working as crane operator in M/s Rakesh Kasapya Vendor,
Tata Steel, Meramandali he received information about his
brother-in-law named Rabi Kumar who was also working as
crane operator in the same company since last two years. He
further alleges that after finishing his night shift while his
brother-in-law was going to the market, one unknown culprit
near Talabahar village gave gun shoot injury. Thereafter, he
was shifted to DHH hospital, Angul by 108 Ambulance for his
treatment. Based on the said report, the Kantabania P.S. Case
No.120 of 2022 was registered for commission of offence under
Section 307 of IPC read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Hence, the present case.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits there is no direct
evidence against the present Petitioner with regard to his
involvement in the alleged crime. The Petitioner has been
entangled in this case on suspicion basing an extra judicial
Designation: Personal Assistant
confession made by him. He further submits that the Petitioner
is in custody since 20.11.2022. 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 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.
Designation: Personal Assistant
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 -
especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent
provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.
(1981) 3SCC 671
Designation: Personal Assistant
9. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is
alleged to be involved in the commission of a heinous offence of
murder. Accordingly, he strongly opposes the prayer for grant
of bail.
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 not indulge himself in any
criminal offence while on bail; and
iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon (in
between the months of July and August, 2025), 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
Designation: Personal Assistant
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
Murmu
Designation: Personal Assistant
