Orissa High Court

Tika @ Paresh Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 20 September, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

           s




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                              BLAPL No.8853 of 2025
                             Tika @ Paresh Mohapatra            ........          Petitioner
                                                                Mr. S. Mohapatra, Senior Adv.
                                                   -Versus-
                             State of Odisha                   ....           Opposite Parties
                                                                    Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC

                                        CORAM:
                                        DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                   ORDER

20.09.2025 Order No.

01.

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

                           121     27.08.2013   Markat         S.T Case No.397 of U/S.
                                                Nagar          2014 pending in the 302/201/506/
                                                               Court of learned 1st 34 of IPC
                                                               Additional
                                                               Sessions     Judge,
                                                               Cuttack

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. The petitioner being in custody in connection with Markat

Nagar P.S. Case No.121 of 2013, corresponding to S.T Case No.397

of 2014 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions

Judge, Cuttack, registered for the alleged commission of offence

under Section 302/201/506/34 of IPC, as filed this petition for his

release on bail.

3. The Petitioner's case in brief is that the deceased sister of the

informant married to one Sunanda Mishra on 4th March, 1998 and,

thereafter, she proceeded to USA along with her husband on

30.05.1998 and stayed there. Due to health problem of her husband,

both of them returned to India and by that time they were blessed

with a male child. It is further alleged that the deceased who was

the sister of the informant who joined as a Teacher in St. Xavier

School, Patia. During course of service, she came in contact with the

Petitioner and it is alleged that at the instance of the Petitioner the

deceased joined in Oxford International School, Niali. Thereafter,

joined as a prince OM International School at Patnagarh in the

district of Balangir. Further, allegation reveals that on 2nd week of

July 2015, the deceased came to the informant's house and stayed

there for four days and the deceased informed that he would likely

to transfer to Cuttack or Bhubaneswar by the Petitioner. Thereafter,

the informant learnt that the petitioner and the deceased were

residing in rented accommodation at C.D.A., Sector-10, Cuttack

and, later she disappeared. The family members of the informant

could not tress her out. Thereafter, the informant came and

contacted with the Petitioner at St. Xavier School, Barbati, Cuttack

and when asked the petitioner he failed to divulge about where

about of the deceased. Being asked repeatedly, the Petitioner

threatened the informant stating that he had killed the deceased

and burnt her dead body.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner

has been languishing in custody since 27.08.2013 and in the

meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted on 20.12.2013.

He further submits that out of 28 prosecution witnesses, only 16

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

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

(1981) 3 SCC 671.

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

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.

SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.

8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail

prayer of the Petitioner.

9. Considering the facts and keeping in view the submission of

learned counsel for the Petitioner and considering the long

detention period, without going into the merit of the case, 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 in the aforesaid case

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 1st Monday of every month between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till the conclusion of the trial;

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 plant 100 saplings of local variety like mango, neem, tamarind etc. around his village over the Government land/community land/private land, if it is in the possession of the Petitioner or his family members;