Orissa High Court
Sunil @ Sarat @ Sabyasachi vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 13 May, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.12178 of 2024
(In the matter of application under Section 483 of the
BNSS).
Sunil @ Sarat @ Sabyasachi ... Petitioner
Panda
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. M.M. Patnaik, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:13.05.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS
by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
Tarasingi PS Case No.12 of 2008 corresponding to ST
Case No.108 of 2015 (GR Case No.76 of 2008) pending
in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhanjanagar, Ganjam, for commission of offences
punishable U/Ss.121/ 121-A/ 122/ 124/ 147/ 148/ 435/
436/ 506/ 120-B/ 149 of IPC r/w Sections 16/ 18/ 20/
21/ 23/ 38/ 40 of UAP Act and U/Ss.25/27 of Arms Act
and U/Ss.3/4/5 of ES Act and U/Ss.3/4 of PDPP Act, on
the main allegation of rioting being armed with deadly
weapons along with co-accused persons and setting fire
to the office and furniture by hurling bombs and
exchange of fire through guns and damaging
government property.
2. Heard, Mr. Mruganka Mauli Patnaik,
learned counsel for the petitioner appearing virtually
and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in
the present matter and perused the record including
the report submitted by the learned trial Court.
3. Admittedly, the learned trial Court by his
report has informed that the petitioner has been
remanded in this case since 05.09.2014, but only 16
out of 54 charge-sheeted witnesses have been
examined till today and the trial is yet to be concluded.
Out of 16 witnesses examined so far, none has
supported the prosecution case. Right to speedy trial is
in fact the fundamental right of an accused, but
keeping a person in detention for period more than 10
years without the assurance of speedy trial would by
any standard constitute violation of right to speedy trial
as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. No doubt, the allegation against the petitioner is
grave and serious, but the prosecution is unable to
produce any convincing evidence till today to justify the
further detention of the petitioner in custody. A person
cannot be kept inside confinement for an indefinite
period on the assurance that one day the trial would be
concluded and in such event of long custody, the Under
Trial Prisoner (UTP) would be worse sufferer. Further, if
the UTP is acquitted of the charge after remaining in
custody for substantial period, the process cannot be
reversed to give the UTP to his earlier life because it is
a irreversible process.
4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and
after having considered the rival submissions and trial
having not concluded even after more than 10 years
custody of the petitioner, this Court without expressing
any view on merits admits the petitioner to bail.
5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand) only with two solvent sureties each for
the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court
in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as
deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence
while on bail and
(ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall
attend the trial Court on each date of posting
without fail unless his attendance is dispensed
with. In case the Petitioner fails without
sufficient cause to appear in the Court in
accordance with the terms of the bail, the
learned trial Court may proceed against
the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of
BNS, 2023 in accordance with law,
(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior
permission till disposal of the case by
intimating his present address of stay to the
concerned Court,
(iv) the petitioner shall report attendance
before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in
a fortnight preferably on a Sunday in each
month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for
three(03) months from the actual date of his
release from the custody.
The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station
shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after
recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated.
It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the
case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner
without further reference to this Court, if any of the
above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation
of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid,
the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future
for similar/grave offences on prima facie accusations
may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in
this case.
6. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
7. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as
per Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Reason: Authentication Dated the 13th day of May, 2025/Subhasmita
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 14-May-2025 15:06:14
