Orissa High Court
Manas Ranjan Gopal vs State Of Odisha ........ Opposite Party on 20 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 8901 of 2025
Manas Ranjan Gopal ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Debabrata Dash, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha ........ Opposite Party
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
20.09.2025
Order No.
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Station and Courts'
Name
40 26.01.2023 Junagarh C.T. Case Sec 302/34
No.90 of of IPC
2023 (S.C.)
pending in
the court of
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Dharmagarh
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Designation: Personal Assistant
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Junagarh P.S. Case
No.40 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.90 of 2023 (S.C.)
pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Dharmagarh, registered for the alleged commission of
offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC, has filed this petition
for his release on bail.
4. The brief fact of the case is that on 26.01.2023 the informant
lodged a written complaint before the Junagarh P.S. alleging
therein that on the same at about 5 P.M. the Petitioner along
with other co-accused persons were cutting the Government
road which has been connected to the agriculture field of the
informant. The informant's father opposed the same for
which there was a hot exchange of words between the
accused persons and the informant. Later, they all abused the
informant and assaulted the informant's father by means of
fist blow on his chest and head with an intention to kill him.
One Chakradhar Thakur and Trilochan Thakur rescued his
father from them. Thereafter, the informant's father has been
shifted to Junagarh Hospital where he has been declared
dead. Hence, this case.
Designation: Personal Assistant
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the
meanwhile the material witnesses including the eyewitnesses
P.Ws.3 and 4 who are the brothers of the deceased have been
examined. He further submits that the co-accused persons
who are on similar footing have already been released on bail
on 20.11.2024 in BLAPL No.10653 of 2024 passed by this
Court. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since
28.01.2023. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be
enlarged on bail on any stringent terms and conditions.
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
Designation: Personal Assistant
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. 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
(1981) 3SCC 671
SignatureSLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 22-Sep-2025 14:02:12
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 submits that the Petitioner
alleged to have been involved in heinous crime of murder.
Hence, he vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. She further
submits that just period of long detention cannot be a ground
for release the petitioner on bail in such a heinous crime.
10. Without going into the merit of the case and based on the
facts and circumstances of the case, 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;
Designation: Personal Assistant
iii. The Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence
or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any
manner; and
iv. The Petitioner 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 the land for plantation.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to
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.
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
Designation: Personal Assistant
Station assuring that he shall maintain those plants for two
years.
14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
Designation: Personal Assistant
