TIKAL BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged that petitioner and several others have committed offences, inter alia, under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The earlier applications for bail on behalf of the present petitioner had been rejected at least on two occasions, as per the certificate furnished in the bail application itself. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry at the instance of one Chitta Mishra. It is further contended that petitioner is suffering from various ailments inside jail and is not getting proper treatment. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that petitioner has remained in custody for more than two and half years and there is no possibility of the criminal trial being disposed of at an early date and as such, the petitioner should be directed to be released on bail keeping in view the right of a person to get speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) SO far as the first submission is concerned, though it appears that there is rivalry between the prosecution party and the accused persons and cases and counter cases are apparently pending, as evident from records in Criminal Misc. Case No. 178 of 1997 (Narayan Sahoo v. Jabdu Nanda and Ors.) and Criminal Misc. Case No. 491 of 1996 (Jadbu Nanda v. Ramesh Kumar Satpathy and Ors.) which were being listed and taken up along with the present case, it cannot be concluded for the purpose of considering this bail application that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. A perusal of the connected disposed of cases relating to the petitioner as well as several co -accused persons and the case diary indicates that the petitioner is alleged to have given the fatal blow to the deceased. At the time of considering the bail application it would not be proper to discuss in detail the statements of various persons against the petitioner, nor would it be proper to opine as to. whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to rivalry. As such, it cannot be said that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that since the petitioner is incarcerated in jail for more than two and half years, and there is no possibility of the conclusion of the trial in near future due to pendency of criminal case in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioner should be released on bail. In this connection, it has been contended that right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused person and comes within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is no longer in dispute that right to speedy trial is apart of fundamental right of a person as envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a position is well -recognised at least in several decisions of the Supreme Court since about two decades. In the decision reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court, 939 (Kadra Pehadiya and Ors. v. State of Bihar), it had been observed :