Orissa High Court
Kuna Barik vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party (S) on 15 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 25-May-2025 10:01:56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2622 OF 2025
Kuna Barik .... Petitioner (s)
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order No. ORDER
01. 15.05.2025
F.I.R./ Dated Police Case No. Sections
PR Station and Courts'
No. Name
93 14.06.2023 Suliapada S.T. Case Section 394 of the I.P.C.
No.191 of read with Sections 25/27
2024 of the Arms Act.
pending in
the court of
learned 2nd
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Baripada
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Suliapada
P.S. Case No.93 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.191 of
2024 pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Baripada, registered for the alleged commission of
offences under Section 394 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25/27
of the Arms Act, has filed this Petition for his release on bail.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was lodged by one
Swapneswar Singha, before the IIC, Suliapada P.S. alleging
therein that on 13.06.2023 at about 5 PM while the informant
was returning home after closing his Jewellary Shop on the
way at Satyabhaya Jungle four unknown persons came by two
bikes and on the point of gun snatched away mobile phone
along with the bag which contains some valuable articles.
Thereafter, at about 12 AM-12.30 AM they took the informant
to his shop and took away some ornaments and cash of
Rs.67,000/- from his shop. Hence, this Case.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the co-accused
persons in this case have already been released on bail.
Investigation in this case has already been completed and
charge has been framed. The Petitioner was remanded in this
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
case on 17.08.2023 while being in custody in Bhanjanagar Jail in
connection with another case of Buguda Police Station.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy trial
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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
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
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.
(1981) 3SCC 671
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail of the Petitioner.
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 and the factum of release of the co-
accused persons on bail, 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 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 offence while on bail;
iii. The Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
and
iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon (between
June, 2025 to August, 2025) shall plant 100 saplings of
local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc.,
around their 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
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in
identifying the land for plantation.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to
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 or not.
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. Accordingly, this BLAPL is disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
B. Jhankar
