Keshab Bhue Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Keshab Bhue Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement of the Petitioner on bail in C.T. Case No. 19 of 2023 on stringent terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court, plus the four stated conditions (alternate-Sunday police station reporting, attendance on every posting date, no fresh offence, no tampering with evidence), with violation entailing cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, in judicial custody since 15.01.2023 in Attabira P.S. Case No. 21 of 2023 / C.T. Case No. 19 of 2023 (Sections 307/302/34 IPC) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh, should be released on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter.

Ratio / Principle

Bail is subject to conditions: appearance before the local Police Station every alternate Sunday between 10.00 A.M. to 12.00 P.M. till conclusion of the trial; appearance before the learned court in seisin on each date of posting; no indulgence in any criminal offence while on bail; and no tampering with prosecution evidence.

Key takeaways

Violation of any of the bail conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail — BLAPL — Sections 307/302/34 IPC — Petitioner in judicial custody since 15.01.2023 in Attabira P.S. Case No. 21 of 2023 / C.T. Case No. 19 of 2023 (learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh) for alleged stabbing of the deceased during a land-dispute altercation — co-accused Gopala Thapa, Biswanath Sahoo and Trilochan Bhue already enlarged on bail (BLAPL Nos. 6322 of 2023, 2998 of 2023, 11311 of 2024) — defence urged that prolonged incarceration violates the fundamental right to speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon; Kadra Pahadiya; Mohd. Muslim cited by counsel) — State opposed bail on the ground of heinousness of the crime — Court, without going into the merits, directed release on bail with stringent conditions: reporting at the local police station every alternate Sunday (10.00 A.M.–12.00 P.M.) till conclusion of trial, presence before the trial court on each posting date, no fresh criminal offence, and no tampering with prosecution evidence — violation to entail cancellation of bail — BLAPL disposed of. (Paras 10–12)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No. 1614 of 2026

Keshab Bhue

..…... Petitioner(s)

Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu, Adv.

-versus-

State of Odisha

.….... Opposite Party

Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

ORDER

11.05.2026

Order No.

01

F.I.R. No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
21	14.01.2023	Attabira	C.T. Case No.19 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh	Sections 307/302/34 IPC

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34

2

The Petitioner being in custody in Attabira P.S. Case No. 21 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.19 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bargarh, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Section 307/302/34 of IPC, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

The brief fact of the case is that the informant, named Debarchan Bhue, is the brother of the deceased (Subarchan Bhue). On 14.01.2023 at about 8 PM, while the deceased was at his house, a hot altercation took place between the deceased and the accused, Trilochan Bhue and his son, Sushanta Bhue, over a land dispute. Meanwhile, on being called by the accused, Trilochan Bhue, his nephew Haribola Bhue, along with one of his friends, came to the spot house by a motorcycle and manhandled the deceased, but when the deceased protested, they fled from the spot. On the same day at 11 P.M., Haribola Bhue, the present accused Petitioner, along with two friends, came to the spot by a car. Then, they were joined by the accused, Trilochan Bhue and Sushanta Bhue, who attacked the deceased. It is alleged that Haribola Bhue and his friends caught hold of the deceased, and the accused-petitioner Keshaba Bhue stabbed him on his head and neck by means of a sharp weapon (screw driver), for

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34

3

which the deceased sustained grievous injury and fell down on the ground. In the meantime, the uncle of the deceased, Puma Behera and one Gunanidhi Behera intervened and tried to rescue the deceased from the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons left the spot by car. The injured, thereafter, was shifted to Attabira Medical for treatment, but he was declared dead. Hence, this case.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.01.2023. He further submits that the co-accused persons named Gopala Thapa, Biswanath Sahoo and Trilochan Bhue have already been released on bail by this Court in BLAPL No.6322 of 2023, BLAPL No.2998 of 2023 and BLAPL No.11311 of 2024 respectively. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail on any stringent terms and conditions.

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:

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34

4

"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.”

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 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

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. 1 Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34

1 (1981) 3SCC 671

5

to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial.

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.

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. He further submits that just period of long detention cannot be a ground for release the petitioner on bail in such a heinous crime.

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

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34

6

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.

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

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

Judge

Murmu

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 11:58:34