Orissa High Court
Hari @ Harekrushna Behera vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 13 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
s
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.4383 of 2025
Hari @ Harekrushna Behera ........ Petitioner
Mr. Y.Parekh, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
Mrs. J. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
13.05.2025
Order No.
01.
F.I.R Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
333 26.09.2020 Khurda G.R Case U/S. 302 of the
No.1103 of 2020 IPC
further
corresponding to
pending in the
Court of learned
1st Additional
Sessions Judge,
Khordha
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The petitioner being in custody in connection with
Khurda P.S. Case No.333 of 2020, corresponding to G.R Case
No.1103 of 2020, further corresponding to S.T Case No.34 of 2021,
pending in the court learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Khordha, registered for the alleged commission of offence under
Section 302 of the IPC, has filed this petition for his release on bail.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 25.09.2020 after the
quarrel, the deceased was found dead at mother-in-law's house.
Thereafter the complainant feels and links this case to the quarrel
among the petitioner and the deceased. It is clear that the case was
not of free fight and no question arises for taking any self-defence.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been languishing in custody since 30.09.2020. He
further submits that as against total 30 prosecution witnesses, only
5 have been examined, and, therefore, the trial is not expected to be
complete so soon. He further submits that for such long detention
of the Petitioner in custody when the trial is progressing at a snail's
space and no such step is being taken by the prosecution to
expedite the same, further detention of the Petitioner in custody is
not warranted. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays
that the bail application of the petitioner may be favourbaly
considered and he may be allowed to go on bail in the interest of
justice.
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 petitioners 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 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
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
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.
9. Without going to the merit of the matter, considering the
facts and keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the
Petitioner and considering the detention period, this Court is of the
view that there is no requirement of keeping the Petitioner inside
the custody any further. Accordingly, this Court directs that the
Petitioner be released on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter
on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions
that:
i. the petitioner shall appear before the local Police
Station on every Monday between 10 A.M. to 1.00
P.M.;
ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal
activities in future;
iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution evidence in any manner;
iv. the Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local
police station that he would never engage in such
criminal activities in future.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation
of the bail.
10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
