Orissa High Court Grants Bail In 3 Different Cases Of Rape, Murder & Abetment To Suicide Citing Delay In Trial But Asks Accused To Plant Trees
The Orissa High Court on Monday granted bail/interim bail to three different persons, in three different cases, accused of committing rape of a minor girl belonging to SC/ST category, murder and abetment to suicide of a minor respectively.While passing such orders, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi underlined the importance of speedy trial and held –“…in a given...
The Orissa High Court on Monday granted bail/interim bail to three different persons, in three different cases, accused of committing rape of a minor girl belonging to SC/ST category, murder and abetment to suicide of a minor respectively.
While passing such orders, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi underlined the importance of speedy trial and held –
“…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.”
Factual Backgrounds
In the first case, the victim had been to her nearby village to watch 'jatra' with her cousin brother. While they were returning to her house at about 4 AM in the morning it is alleged that four persons, including the petitioner, obstructed and assaulted them.
One of the accused caught hold of the cousin brother of the victim and the rest of the accused persons forcibly took the victim to a nearby field and committed rape on her one after another, it was alleged. It was also alleged that they video-recorded the sexual exploitation of the victim.
The victim lodged the FIR and investigation was carried out. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the four accused persons, including the petitioner, under Sections 341/323/379/506/376D/354D/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act read with Section 6 of POCSO Act.
In the second case it is alleged that the petitioner along with other persons attacked the deceased being armed with sword, bhujali, rod etc. which caused profuse bleeding and ultimately led to his death. He was charged under Sections 302/120B/114/212/34 of the IPC.
In the third case, the petitioner therein allegedly opened the door of the house of the deceased by force and abused her brother in obscene language and threatened to commit rape on her. Being intimidated and harassed by such incident, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Accordingly, the petitioner was charged under Sections 147/451/506/305/149 of the IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
Petitioners' Contentions
In the first case, it was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2019. In the meantime, out of 54 charge-sheeted witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined and thus, the trial is unlikely to be concluded in the near future.
Similarly, in the second and third cases, it was brought to the knowledge of the Court that the respective petitioners are in custody since 17.09.2019 and 19.11.2023 respectively.
It was also highlighted that the conduct of the petitioners inside the custody have been satisfactory. The counsel for the petitioners, in their respective submissions, further undertook that if the petitioners are granted bail, they shall plant and maintain trees around their respective localities.
In the first and second cases, it was also argued that right to speedy trial is a part of the fundamental right of the accused and keeping him in custody for long pending the trial is derogatory to the fundamental rights. To that effect reliance was placed in the cases of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar.
Court's Observations
While deciding the first and second cases, the Court underlined that an accused cannot be denied his fundamental right to speedy trial only on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon it.
“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,” it added.
Justice Panigrahi relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) to hold that incarceration has further deleterious effects where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata, like 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.”
Thus, taking into account the period of detention of the petitioners and facts and circumstances of the respective cases, the Court was inclined to release them on bail/interim bail with, inter alia, the condition that they shall plant saplings like mango, tamarind etc. around their respective villages. They were directed to start planting as soon as the rainy season starts.
They were further ordered not to get themselves indulged in any other crime and were also directed to abstain from tampering the prosecution evidence in any manner.
The respective police stations were entrusted with the duty to oversee the tree plantation of the petitioners and to ensure that they actually plant the same. The District Nurseries were also ordered to provide the plants to the petitioners.
Case Titles: Pintu Mahalik v. State of Odisha & Anr. [Case No. 01], Pikan @ Saumya Ranjan Parida v. State of Odisha [Case No. 02] & Kartik Majhi @ Badrinath v. State of Odisha [Case No. 03]
Case Nos: BLAPL No. 1423 of 2024 [Case No. 01], BLAPL No. 1938 of 2024 [Case No. 02] & BLAPL No. 2317 of 2024 [Case No. 03]
Date of Order: May 06, 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.R. Panda, Advocate [Case No. 01], Mr. L. Patel, Advocate [Case No. 02] & Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate [Case No. 03]
Counsel for the State: Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, Addl. Standing Counsel