Orissa High Court
Sanjib Jagdala vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 12 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.4269 of 2025
Sanjib Jagdala .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Bikash Kumar Dash, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 12.05.2025
F.I.R. Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections
No. Courts' Name
0075 24.04.2022 Birmaharajpur Sessions Case Sections 302 and
No.65/19 of 2022- 34 of the I.P.C
23 corresponding
to Birmaharajpur
P.S. Case No.75 of
2022 pending in
the Court of
learned Addl.
Sessions Judge,
Sonepur
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with
Sessions Case No.65/19 of 2022-23 corresponding to
Birmaharajpur P.S. Case No.75 of 2022 pending in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur registered
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-May-2025 15:39:18
Page 1 of 6
for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 302
and 34 of the I.P.C, has filed this application for his release
on bail.
4. The brief fact of the case is that on 23.04.2022 at about
9.00 A.M the present Petitioner along with one Sankarsan
Jagdala called the father of the informant named
Kalakanhu @ Soumitri Bhoi from his house. Thereafter,
since the father of the informant did not return to his
house, the informant along with some other persons of his
locality conducted search. After some time, they found the
dead body of the deceased near Mahulipalli Talmunda.
Accordingly, an F.I.R. was lodged in the local Police
Station. Upon lodging of the F.I.R and completion of
investigation, the Petitioner was arrested and he has been
languishing in custody since 25.04.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the
Petitioner is no way connected to the offences alleged
against him. He further contends that the Petitioner has
been entangled in this case due to some previous enmity.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contends that
though the Petitioner has been languishing in custody
since 2022, trial in the case has not been concluded till
today.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that
Signature Not Verified the Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy trial
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
is a fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a
Date: 28-May-2025 15:39:18
Page 2 of 6
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. vrs. Home Secretary,
State of Bihar 1, wherein the 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 entitles 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 Bihar2 wherein it has
been stated 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed 1
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
1979 AIR 1360
Reason: Authentication 2
Location: High Court of Orissa (1981) 3 SCC 671
Date: 28-May-2025 15:39:18
Page 3 of 6
legal advice, the application of the said NDPS Rule is
wholly inadvisable. 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)3 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 vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail of the Petitioner. He further submits that
such type of offences is not tolerable in a law abiding
society. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this
BLAPL.
10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both
Signature Not Verified the parties, this Court without going into the merits of the
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication 3
Location: High Court of Orissa SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023
Date: 28-May-2025 15:39:18
Page 4 of 6
case, directs the court in seisin over the matter to release
the present Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on some
stringent terms and conditions with further conditions
that:
i. the Petitioner shall appear before the
concerned local Police Station in every
fortnight on Monday between 10.00A.M. to
1.
00P.M. till conclusion of the trial;
ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any
criminal activities in future;
iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
iv. the Petitioner after the onset of monsoon
(between June, 2025 to August, 2025), shall
plant 100 saplings of local variety like mango,
neem, tamarind etc. in and around his village
over the Government land/ community land/
private land, if it is in the possession of the
Petitioner or his family members.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
11. 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 location for plantation of the saplings. 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.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-May-2025 15:39:18
12. 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.
13. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an
affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local
Police Station assuring that he will maintain those plants
for two years. The said affidavit be also produced before
the learned court below at the time of trial.
14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-May-2025 15:39:18
