Suresh Choudhury @ Taklu Vs State of Odisha

FIR/PR No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
126	15.10.2021	Sector-7 , Rourkela	S.T. Case No.28/63 of 2022 pending in the court of	Sections- 302/201/120- B/34 of the IPC
			learned 2^nd
			Addl. Sessions Judge,Rourkela

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶15

2

¶16

The Petitioner is in custody in connection with Sector-7, Rourkela P.S. Case No.126 of 2021 corresponding to S.T. Case No.28/63 of 2022 pending in the court of learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Roukela, has filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Sections- 302/201/120-B/34 of the IPC.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.2021, one Gita Nag, wife of Mishan Nag resident of Mahima Ashram Bidya Nagar Basti lodged a written report before the IIC, Sector-7, Rourkela P.S. alleging therein that her son named Mana @ Manoranjan Nag, went to see Durga Puja festival since 6 PM on 14.10.2021. At about 8 AM from a photo, she got to know that someone has killed her son and thrown his body at Sector-5 road side bush near Deepika School. She further alleged that some miscreants might have killed her son keeping rivalry. Hence, this case.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been arraigned in this case and languishing in custody since 21.10.2021. He further submits that the Petitoner is the sole earning member of his family. He further submits

¶19

Page 2 of 7

¶20

3

¶21

that in the meantime, out of 46 charge-sheeted witnesses, 23 witnesses have already been examined in the trial; there is least chance of avoiding the trial. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner. He further submits that at this fag end of trial, release of the Petitioner on bail will push the trial into dark.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner 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 Petitioner in prolonged custody without commencement or conclusion of trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of his 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:

¶24

"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

¶25

Page 3 of 7

¶26

4

¶27

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."

¶28

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 undertrial 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 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

1 (1981) 3 SCC 671.

Page 4 of 7

5

does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right.

¶33

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 farreaching 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.

¶34

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail.

¶35

Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the Petitioner’s custody, it is directed that the Petitioner be

¶36

2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.

¶37

Page 5 of 7

¶38

6

¶39

released on bail in the aforesaid case subject to stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court seized of the matter, with the further condition that:-

¶40

i. The Petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM till conclusion of the trial.

¶41

ii. The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail.

¶42

iii. The Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶43

iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon (during June, 2025 to August, 2025), shall plant 200 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 land for the plantation.

¶44

Page 6 of 7

¶45

7

¶46

Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.

¶47

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 as required.

¶48

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.

¶49