[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manoj Digal vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 29 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 2599 of 2026
Manoj Digal ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Karunakar Gaya, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Raj Bhushan Das, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
29.04.2026
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. and Sections
Station Courts'
No.
Name
181 01.06.2024 Maitri C.T. Case Sections 498-
Vihar No.208 of A/341/306/323
2023 pending of I.P.C
in the court
of learned
Addl.
Sessions
Judge,
Bhubaneswar
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Maitri Vihar P.S. Case No.
181 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.208 of 2023
pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar, registered for the alleged commission of
offences under Sections 498-A/341/306/323 of I.P.C, has filed
this petition for his release on bail.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the Petitioner had married the
deceased one year back. On 25.05.2023, after finishing his
work, when the accused returned to his home, he found the
deceased talking with someone, and he suspected the
deceased to have some extra marital relationship with that
person. When he asked the same to the deceased, a quarrel
occurred between them, and the accused assaulted her
brutally by means of a wooden stick, for which on the very
next day, i.e., 26.05.2023, the deceased committed suicide by
hanging herself from the ceiling fan. Hence, this case.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner
is no way connected with the offences as alleged by the
prosecution in any manner. The Petitioner is in custody since
28.05.2023. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.
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. State of Bihar 1wherein it has been held that the obligation
of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed
1 MURMU
(1981) 3SCC 671
Reason: Authentication
Date: 30-Apr-2026 13:27:29
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.
2 MURMU
Reason: Authentication
Date: 30-Apr-2026 13:27:29
9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations.
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 alternate Sunday between 10.00
A.M. to 12.00 P.M. till conclusion of the trial.;
ii. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned court
in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of
the case;
iii. The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any
criminal offence while on bail.
iv. The Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
11. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Murmu
Date: 30-Apr-2026 13:27:29
