Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ori) 719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY, J.
Siba Shankar Dash @ Siva @ Pintu - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and another - Respondents
CRLA Nos.572, 709, 710, 711 and 712 of 2021
Decided On : 11-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.D.Das, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K.Nayak, A.G.A. Mr.B.Pradhan

The court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial new allegations warrants bail, upholding the principle of the right to a speedy trial.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(iv)(r), 3(2)(v) - Bail application - Application for bail was made under various IPC sections along with the SC & ST Act due to delay in trail - It was held that the gravity of the allegations and length of custody must be weighed against the right to a speedy trial. Despite being a habitual offender with numerous cases against him, the appellant was granted bail considering the prolonged incarceration and lack of recent allegations. (Paras 3, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Speedy Trial - Principles established around the right to a speedy trial outline that undue detention constitutes a violation of the rights of the accused. They must be provided with bail when significant periods of custody have surpassed the timelines prescribed by law, barring escalated risks. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The appellant had been in custody since January 2018 and faced multiple charges, with previous bail requests denied due to perceived proclivity towards crime. The State contended he posed threats to witnesses, but the appellant argued that delays in trial were not attributable to him. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 7)

Findings of Court:
The appellant's length of custody and the nature of the allegations warranted bail under specified conditions to ensure compliance and protection for witnesses involved. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: Main issues included the appellant's right to bail against the severity of accusations and his history as a habitual offender. (Paras 8, 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of balancing accusations and trial duration, ruling that prolonged pre-trial detention without further charges necessitates granting bail under conditions that would prevent witness tampering or other misconduct. (Paras 9, 12)

Result: Appeals allowed; bail granted under specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. basis for bail application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's rationale for bail decision. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. conditions and directions for bail. (Para 11)
5. final order disposing of appeals. (Para 12 , 13)

ORDER :

1. The Appellant seeks bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 14-A of the SC & ST (PoA) Act.

2. The offences alleged are under Sections 448 /420/386/ 387/294/506/467/468/471/120-B/34 of the I.P.C., Section 25 (1B)/ 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(iv)(r)/3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act in five Cases Viz., G.R. Case No. 22/2017, 27/2018, 6/2019, 7/2019 & 8/2019 pending before the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Spl. Judge, Berhampur. Present appeals are arising out of those five G.R.Cases.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that he is inside custody since 18^th January, 2018 in G.R.Case No.22/2017, 17^th January, 2019 in G.R.Case No.27/2018, 2^nd April, 2019 in G.R.Case No.6/2019 and 18^th June, 2019 in G.R.Case No.7 of 2019. It is further submitted that his prayer for bail was earlier rejected twice by this Court in CRLA Nos.672, 195, 470, 670 & 919 of 2019; and CRLA Nos. 192, 193, 194, 195 and 196 of 2020 respectively. On those last two occasions this Court while rejecting the prayer for bail has categorically directed the trial court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible in terms of the principles prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hussain and another Vrs. Union of India and another , (2017) 5 SCC 702 and in spite of such directions of this Court, the trial did not progress substantially and is still pending. It is therefore submitted that keeping in view the delay in completion of trial, the Appellant should be released on bail.

4. Mr.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted on behalf of the State that in CRLA No.572 of 2011 and CRLA No.711 of 2021, the informant died in the meantime and his L.Rs did not accept notice from the police. He further submitted that all such trials before the learned Special Judge are at the verge of completion and will be completed very shortly. He further added that this Appellant is a notorious gangster of the locality involved in fifty seven cases at Berhampur including many heinous offences like murder etc. His father was also a habitual offender of the locality. The Appellant is operating his gang despite being inside the jail and B.N.Pur P.S.Case No.205 dated 29^th September, 2019 and Golanthara P.S.Case No.338 dated 19^th November, 2020 have been registered relating to threat posed to different witnesses of the case.

5. Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Informant in CRLA Nos.709, 710 & 712 of 2021 objected the prayer for bail supporting the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate. He further added that repeated attempts of threat are put on the witnesses and the delay in completion of trial is not due to laches on the part of the informant or the prosecution and thus no benefit can be given to the Appellant in that aspect.

6. Mr.Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted in his reply that admittedly, the delay is not due to any reason attributable to the present Appellant. Rather, an analysis of sequence of examination of the witnesses before the trial court would reveal how the prosecution is delaying production of the witnesses tactfully only to deprive of the Appellant for granting bail. He further emphasizes that the allegations of putting threat to the witnesses at the instance of the Appellant is not at all correct since the Appellant has neither been arrayed as an accused in B.N.Pur P.S.Case No.205 of 2019 nor Golanthara P.S.Case No.338 of 2020. As per him, during the interim release of the Appellant on bail for the period from 8^th March, 2022 to 4^th April, 2022 on account of thread ceremony of his son, no such allegations of disturbances or overt activities was made either wit