Orissa High Court
Mahendra Bhabasagar 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. 533 of 2025
Mahendra Bhabasagar ........ Petitioner
Mr. Trilochan Nanda, 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. Sections
No. Station and Courts'
Name
443 30.11.2023 Boudh S.T. Case Section
No.13 of 302 of IPC
pending in
the court of
learned
Additional
District and
Sessions
Judge,
Boudh
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Designation: Personal Assistant
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Boudh P.S. Case No. 443
of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.13 of 2024, pending in
the court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Boudh, registered for the alleged commission of offence under
Section 302 of IPC has filed this petition for his release on bail.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.11.2023 at about
8.00 A.M. the informant came to know that a dead body was
lying in a wounded condition near Didingapadar village.
Thereafter, the informant rushed to the spot and found that a
male person aged about 40 to 50 years having cut injuries was
lying dead. The informant suspected that the murder has been
committed last night. Accordingly, he informed the police
regarding the occurrence. Hence, this case.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that out of 24
charge sheeted witnesses, 8 witnesses have already been
examined. He further submits that the Petitioner has been
implicated in this case based on the confessional statement of
the co-accused persons. He further submits that the Petitioner is
in custody since 06.12.2023. 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
Designation: Personal Assistant
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.
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
(1981) 3SCC 671
Designation: Personal Assistant
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.
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.
Designation: Personal Assistant
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
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.
Designation: Personal Assistant
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
