Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 914 (ORI)

SRI DEBA @ DEBENDRA RAY v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-10-01

L.K.MISHRA

body2008
JUDGMENT : L.K. Mishra, J. - The Petitioner is an accused in T.R. Case No. 7 of 1991 pending HI the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar involving offence u/s 13(2) read With 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420/468/471 of the I.P.C. 2. The Petitioner was arrested by the I.O. on 23.03.1990 and was released on bail. Charge sheet was submitted in the case on 26.03.1990. Thereafter summons and processes were issued but the Petitioner intentionally avoided to appear in this case. N.B.W. was issued and ultimately process under Sections 82 and 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure were issued several times. The Petitioner remained absconder and remained away from India most of the period and hence he could not be appeared Ultimately after his return to India he was arrested. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar and hence he has approached this Court. 3. Bail is prayed for on the ground that the Petitioner has never avoided the processes of the Court and though he was staying out side India, he used to come to India time and again. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has got a son who is a mentally retarded child with disability and there is no male member to look after him. 4. Sri D.K. Mohapatra learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department has vehemently resisted the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is no chance of apprehension of the accused once he is granted bail since he will intentionally remained out side India. He has further submitted that the Petitioner has wilfully defaulted for about 18 years for which the case could not be concluded and that the Vigilance Department would make all efforts to conclude of the trial within two months. 5. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he was the Chairman of Cashew-Development Corporation and during his incumbency as Chairman of Corporation by fabricating records received and misappropriated a surrj of Rs. 72,000/- (seventy two thousand) towards house rent though he was not entitled to it. 6. The record reveals that the Petitioner was released on bail on 23.03.1990 and thereafter for a period of more than 18 years he has managed to avoid all the efforts of the Court to bring him to trial by remaining an absconder. 72,000/- (seventy two thousand) towards house rent though he was not entitled to it. 6. The record reveals that the Petitioner was released on bail on 23.03.1990 and thereafter for a period of more than 18 years he has managed to avoid all the efforts of the Court to bring him to trial by remaining an absconder. He is an educated man and knows very well about the pendency of the case and as is apparent, remained out side India to deliberately avoid the process of the Court. I am convinced that once the Petitioner is granted bail he will find out one way or other to avoid the process of the Court and the trial of the case cannot be completed. On the other hand the Vigilance Department has assured to take all steps for expeditious trial and the learned Counsel on behalf of the Vigilance Department has submitted that in all probability, the trial will be completed within a period of two months. 7. No proof is submitted in support of the contention that the Petitioner has a mentally retarded son and that his presence is essential to take care of the said son. It is not clear if the said alleged son used to remain within India or out side India. If he stays inside India then who used to take care of him all the years when the Petitioner remained outside the country and if he stays out side India then he must have been placed in capable hands when the Petitioner came to India. The same person can take care of the son of the Petitioner for a period of another two or three months till the trial is over. Either way, it seems that it is not necessary for the Petitioner himself to take care of the said son. 8. Speedy trial is a right of the accused. It is also a right of the public at large represented by the State to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible and the guilty is brought to book. If the trial is inordinately delayed, then the interest of the society suffers since it sends a wrong signal that after having committed a crime a person can remain at large at his sweet will and the entire judicial process is helpless against him. If the trial is inordinately delayed, then the interest of the society suffers since it sends a wrong signal that after having committed a crime a person can remain at large at his sweet will and the entire judicial process is helpless against him. Delay in disposal of a case not only encourages potential offenders to commit crimes, but also brings unjustified stigma of tardiness to the head of judiciary. In the present case the trial would have been concluded long since but for the deliberate non-cooperation of the Petitioner. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the conduct of the Petitioner, I don't feel it expedient to grant him bail. Accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. If the trial is not concluded within the year 2008, the Petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court. The BLAPL is disposed of accordingly.