Orissa High Court

Rabi Sahu vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 2 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                BLAPL No.2869 of 2025
                 Rabi Sahu                                 ........     Petitioner
                                                      Mr. Sasmita Nanda, Advocate
                                      -Versus-
                 State of Odisha                     ..........        Opposite Party
                                                            Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC

                             CORAM:
                             DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                      ORDER

02.05.2025 Order No.

01.

             F.I.R    Dated        Police        Case No. and Sections
             No.                   Station       Courts' Name

             126      25.05.2020   Barkote       C.T. Case No.234    U/s.         498-
                                                 of 2020 further     A/302/34 of IPC
                                                 corresponding to    read        with
                                                 S.T Case No.31 of   section 4 of D.P.
                                                 2020 pending in     Act
                                                 the    Court   of
                                                 learned Sessions
                                                 Judge, Deogarh

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with

Barkote P.S. Case No.126 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case

No.234 of 2020 further corresponding to S.T Case No.31 of 2020

pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Deogarh and

registered for the alleged commission of offences under Section

498-A/302/34 of IPC read with section 4 of D.P. Act, has filed this

petition seeking release on bail.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the deceased was the

daughter in law of the present accused. The deceased daughter in

law was married to the son of the accused since ten years back and

at the time of marriage, house hold articles and jewellery were

given to the deceased by her family members as per their capacity

but after few years, the present accused and his son along with

other family members started torturing the deceased on demand

of dowry. It is alleged that one month prior to the alleged

occurrence the deceased moved to her parental house due to

unbearable torture. It is further alleged that three days before the

occurrence the present petitioner and his son went to the house of

the deceased had persuaded her to return to her in laws house and

after much persuasion the deceased agreed and returned to her in

laws house. On 24.05.2020 at about 11.20 PM the present accused

along with his son sprinkled kerosene on the deceased and put her

ablaze. As a result of which the deceased was completely burnt

and succumbed to burn injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and being

arrested in the case is in custody since 27.12.2022 and in the

meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted. He further

submits that the petitioner is aged about 74 years and he is

suffering from severe old-age disease. In view of all these above,

he urges that further detention of the Petitioner in custody would

serve no useful purpose.

5. 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 petitioner 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."

6. 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 under trial 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

does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this

right.

7. 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

(1981) 3 SCC 671.

SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.

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.

8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the

prayer for bail.

9. 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

in seisin over 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.