Orissa High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking release in connection with a sessions trial involving charges under the Sections 302, 120-B and 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27, Arms Act, 1959 (Arms Act) provisions, a Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J., held that the petitioner was entitled to bail after spending more than 10 years in custody without conclusion of trial. The Court emphasised that denial of a speedy trial infringes the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and however grave the offence, an accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely.
Background
The petitioner was in custody since April 2016 in connection with charges under IPC and Arms Act provisions. Charges were framed in July 2016, yet the trial remained incomplete even after 10 years. Out of 18 charge-sheeted witnesses, only 9 had been examined, with 7 turning hostile. Summons issued to other witnesses revealed that they had expired.
The petitioner argued that prolonged custody violated the right to speedy trial, especially since a co-accused similarly situated had already been acquitted.
However, the State opposed bail, citing criminal antecedents and witness statements, but admitted that key witnesses were deceased and no definite timeline for trial completion was available.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that there appears to be an allegation against the petitioner for committing murder of the deceased along with a co-accused person, but it is not disputed that the petitioner has been in custody since 8 April 2016, with charges framed on 29 July 2016. However, the trial is yet to be concluded even after more than 10 years of custody, and only 9 out of 18 charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined till today, out of which 7 witnesses have become hostile.
Further, the Court noted that the co-accused, who is similarly situated with the present accused, has already been acquitted by the trial court on 30 September 2010. The Court also observed that it was submitted that there are no instructions as to whether the State has challenged the said impugned judgment or not, however, it is confirmed that the said judgment has never been challenged by the State.
The Court highlighted that the effort of the prosecution only seems to be an unnecessary attempt to drag the case, inasmuch as they could not file such a petition within 10 years of the petitioner’s custody, but when the Court asked to intimate as to when the prosecution would conclude examination of witnesses, the petition was filed. The Court noted that, no doubt, the petitioner has some criminal antecedents, but the mere existence of criminal antecedents would not be sufficient to refuse bail unless there is material to indicate that the petitioner, in the event of enlargement on bail, would terrorise the material witnesses whose evidence is crucial for the prosecution case.
The Court referred to Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763, wherein it was observed that there may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration, and the presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case.
Decision
Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application and directed that the petitioners be released on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 50,000 each with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioners must attend the trial on each posting date unless exempted, failing which the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The Court further directed that the petitioners shall not threaten, influence, or coerce any witnesses. Liberty was reserved to the State and the informant to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions or if grounds otherwise arise.
Accordingly, the bail application stood disposed of, with urgent certified copy of the order to be communicated to the trial court and jail authorities.
[Sushanta Dhalasamanta v. State of Orissa, BLAPL No. 8474 of 2025, decided on 4-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate along with C. Samantaray, Advocate
For the Respondent: P.S. Nayak
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
