p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2624 of 2026 Banamali Bhoi …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Rabindra Nath Panda, Adv. -versus- State of Orissa …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 29.04.2026 F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 0010 13.01.2022 Niali S.T. Case No.112/ 2022 arising out of Niali P.S. Case No.10/2022 pending before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack Sections 498- A/323/307/294/506/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with S.T. Case No.112/ 2022 arising out of Niali P.S. Case No.10/2022 pending before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 498- A/323/307/294/506/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-May-2026 11:07:47 Signature Not Verified p. 2 D.P. Act, has filed this application for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that in the year 2020, the sister of the informant had married to the present Petitioner. After such marriage, the in-laws members of his sister demanded more dowry. Since the informant could not provide dowry as per their demand, they started torturing his sister. Finally, they killed the sister of the informant who was blessed with a male child. Soon after the said incident, an F.I.R was lodged in the local Police Station. Accordingly, on completion of investigation and all the formalities, the Petitioner being the husband of the deceased was taken into custody. The Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 14.01.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is no way connected to the offences alleged against him. He has never tortured the deceased, nor has he demanded any dowry. He was taking care of his deceased wife with utmost responsibility. He further contends that trial in the present case has not yet been concluded and the Petitioner has been languishing in custody since last four years. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-May-2026 11:07:47 Signature Not Verified p. 3 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. vrs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1, wherein the Supreme Court has iterated that: "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." 7. He further argues that the period of long incarceration suffered, which entitles the Petitioner for grant of bail. Right to Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an under trial prisoner and these observations have been resonated, time and again, in several judgments including that of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar 2 wherein it has been stated 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 1 1979 AIR 1360 2 (1981) 3 SCC 671 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-May-2026 11:07:47 Signature Not Verified p. 4 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, the application of the said NDPS Rule is wholly inadvisable. 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 to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial. 8. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)3 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. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the present Petitioner. He further contends that such type of offences is not tolerable in a 3 SLP(Crl.) No.915 of 2023 Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-May-2026 11:07:47 Signature Not Verified p. 5 law abiding society. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this BLAPL. 10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the court in seisin over the matter to release the present Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned local Police Station on every alternate Sunday between 10.00A.M. to 12.00P.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 activities in future; iv. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; v. the Petitioner shall not threaten the informant or his family members in any manner; 11. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 12. This BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant