Lingaraj Bagarti Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 7367 of 2023

¶2

Lingaraj Bagarti ..…... Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Niranjan Panda, Adv. ………. Opposite Party Mr. D. Mund, AGA

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party
Mr. D. Mund, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
30.01.2024
Order No.
03.
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Station and
Courts’
Name
104 24.07.2020 Kantamal C.T. Case Section
No.788 of 302/120(B)/34
2020 of IPC
pending
in the
court of
learned
District &
Sessions
Judge,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Kantamal

¶6

Signature Not Verified

¶7

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04

¶8

2

¶9

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶11

The Petitioner being in custody in Kantamal P.S. Case No.104 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.788 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kantamal, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 302/120(B)/34 of IPC, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

¶12

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.07.2020 the deceased left his house at about 7.00 P.M. by his motor cycle and did not return home till late hours of the night. It is further alleged that his mobile was also not responding and on the next day the dead body of the deceased bearing multiple injuries was found near the Landabahal canal/Nala.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations leveled against him are fabricated and baseless. Further, there is no prima facie evidence available to implicate him in the alleged offence. This

¶14

entire case is borne out of some previous disputes. Even Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed none has seen the petitioner inflicting any blow on the Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack d eceased. Meanwhile, charge sheet has already been Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04 submitted and the petitioner has been languishing in

¶15

3

¶16

custody since 20.07.2020. Moreover, the co-accused has already been granted bail by order of this Court vide BLAPL No.2782 of 2021 and by the principle of parity the petitioner seeks to be released on bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner 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:

¶18

"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."

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

He further argues that the period of long i ncarceration suffered, which entitle the Petitioner for grant of bail. Right to Speedy trial is a fundamental right

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04

¶22

4

¶23

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 Bihar¹ wherein 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.

¶24

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from Signed by: LITARAM MURMU

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 01-Feb-2024 1 1:43:04

¶26

5

¶27

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.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner with the submission that the present petitioner does not stand on similar footing with the co-accused.

¶29

Having scrutinized the case record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail on the ground of non-availability of ocular evidence of any witness to implicate him, period of custody and similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail. Accordingly, 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:-

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 01-Feb-2024 11:43:04

¶32

i. the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii. he shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; and

¶33

6

¶34

iii he shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶35