Pandu @ Babul Soren vs State Of Odisha

S.K. Panigrahi, J

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3.The petitioner being in custody in connection with Basta P.S. Case No.143 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No.710 of 2020 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Basta for commission of offence under Sections 147/148/302/201/149 of the Indian Penal Code has filed this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

It is alleged in the F.I.R that on 15.06.2020 the petitioner along with other co-accused brutally assaulted Rohit Hembram and threw the dead body into Chatra Canal. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the court for the alleged offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case based on suspicion. Prima facie, there is no material against the petitioner for his involvement in the alleged crime. In the meantime, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been submitted. The trial has not yet been commenced. The petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2020 which is more than one year.

The Petitioner has already spent in custody for about more than one year. The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again, has expressed displeasure on the delay of trial of the undertrial prisoners and their sufferings due to such delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in  Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81  has observed that "speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right in India; it is implicit in a broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution". Certain provisions of the Cr.P.C. also impose a statutory obligation upon the courts to proceed the trial "expeditiously" so that the case could be disposed of without inordinate delay. The speedy trial of offences is a desirable goal because long delay can defeat justice. There is a common proverb - 'delay defeats justice'. Hence, it is said that speedy justice is the essence of an organised society and so, cases should be decided as early as possible. The present case fails to confirm to the aforesaid stand as articulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the State though vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner but concedes the detention of the petitioner in custody more than one year.

Considering the submissions made, facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of detention of the petitioner in custody for about one year, 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 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

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

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

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

....................................