Adma Tati vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Malkangiri P.S. Case No. 346 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 677 of 2020 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Malkangiri for commission of offence punishable Under Section 302 of IPC, on the allegation of committing murder of his brother-in-law.

In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. J.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is inside jail custody since 28. 09.2020, but trial is yet to be concluded even after three years of the custody of the Petitioner. He further submits that even if the materials on record are taken into consideration, no case U/S. 302 is attracted against the Petitioner since the occurrence took place on a spur of moment and on sudden provocation, and the Petitioner having already detained in custody for near about three years may kindly be granted bail. He further by filing copies of deposition of PWs 1 to 4 submits that the informant who happened to be eye witness to the occurrence had already become hostile and the other eye witness was the wife of the Petitioner and, therefore, in the circumstance there being no evidence against the Petitioner, he may kindly be granted bail.

On the other hand, Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, learned ASC, strongly opposes the bail application of the Petitioner.

It is not disputed that the Petitioner is in custody since 28.09.2020 and the trial is yet to be concluded, but one of the eye witnesses namely Iswar Durua being examined as PW1 had not supported the prosecution case. Prolong incarceration, generally militates against the most precious Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which secures for any person the right to speedy trial and in such situation, the conditional liberty will prevail over long incarceration without any assurance of speedy trial to the Petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid facts and after having considered the rival submissions made vis-à-vis the stage of the trial and taking into consideration the other circumstance on record in entirety, this Court admits the Petitioner to bail.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail,

(ii) the petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with,

(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case and

(iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on Sunday in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six(06) months from the actual date of release from the custody.

The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioners unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner in future for grave and serious offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

…………………………….