JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner Santosh Kumar Roul @ Sarathi Baba in connection with CID, CB, Cuttack P.S. Case No. 20 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1062 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 354, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report dated 20.08.2015 lodged by the victim before the Superintendent of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack is that a few years back, she along with her mother had been to visit the petitioner and taking advantage of the simplicity of her mother, the petitioner kept the documents of their landed properties. Giving assurance of arranging the marriage of the victim, the petitioner took Rs.1,15,000/- (rupees one lakh fifteen thousand only) and gold ornaments from the mother of the victim through one Surendra Mallik and kept both the victim and her mother in the Ashram. The victim and her mother were assigned strenuous work in the Ashram and they were also tortured physically and mentally. When mother of the victim repeatedly asked the petitioner about arranging the marriage of the victim, the petitioner showed some nude photographs of the victim and threatened them to keep silence or else they would face dire consequence. Being apprehensive, in order to keep the dignity of the family, they remained silent. In the month of Chaitra 2014, the petitioner called the victim to his room and embraced her. The victim escaped from the clutches of the petitioner and left the Ashram on that very day and came to her village. Co-accused Sarat Patra came to the house of the victim and threatened her not to disclose about the incident before anybody or else she would be killed and further told her that she could do no harm to the petitioner. On the basis of such F.I.R., CID, CB, Cuttack P.S. Case No. 20 of 2015 was registered under sections 120-B, 420, 354, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. On the basis of such F.I.R., CID, CB, Cuttack P.S. Case No. 20 of 2015 was registered under sections 120-B, 420, 354, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. Smt. Nilimarani Panda, Inspector of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack took up investigation of the case and on completion of investigation, finding prima facie case submitted charge sheet on 11.12.2015 against the petitioner and co-accused Sarat Chandra Patra under sections 120-B, 420, 354, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on receipt of which the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara took cognizance of such offences as per order dated 14.12.2015. 3. The petitioner was taken on remand in this case on 16.10.2015 and his first bail application was rejected by this case on merit on 27.10.2016 in BLAPL No. 7251 of 2015. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against such order by filing a petition registered as Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 750/2017 which was dismissed on 01.02.2017. The petitioner again approached this Court for bail in BLAPL No. 5855 of 2017 which was rejected on 13.10.2017. The petitioner then moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the second time for bail against the order dated 13.10.2017 of this Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 936/2018 which was also rejected on 16.05.2018. The petitioner then approached this Court for the third time in BLAPL No. 1399 of 2019 which was disposed of on 16.04.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to move for bail in the trial Court in view of the provision under section 436-A of Cr.P.C. The petitioner in pursuance to such order, moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in BLAPL No. 246 of 2019 which was rejected on 26.04.2019. 4. Mr. Soura Ch. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset contended that since the earlier bail applications of the petitioner have been rejected by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier, this bail application is being moved solely on the ground of statutory violation of the provision contemplated under section 436-A of Cr.P.C. in detaining the petitioner more than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offences without passing any order by the Magistrate in continuing such detention. According to Mr. According to Mr. Mohapatra, this is a change in the circumstances which gives scope to this Court to reconsider the application for bail. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hussain -Vrs. Union of India, (2017) AIR SC 1362 and this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Hansdah Vrs. Republic of India,2018 (71) OCR 114. Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand contended that since the proceeding in the Court below was stayed by this Court in CRLREV No.228 of 2016 in which the co-accused Sarat Chandra Patra challenged the order taking cognizance which is continuing till date, in view of the explanation to section 436-A of Cr.P.C., the stay period has to be excluded and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, section 436-A of Cr.P.C. came to be inserted, which came into force w.e.f. 23.06.2006 which reads as follows:- "436-A. Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained.- Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties: Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties: Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation.- In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded." In the statement of objects and reasons, it is stated as follows:- "There had been instances, where undertrial prisoners were detained in jail for periods beyond the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the alleged offence. As remedial measure, section 436-A has been inserted to provide that where an under trial prisoner other than the one accused of an offence for which death has been prescribed as one of the punishments, has been under detention for a period extending to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the alleged offence, he should be released on his personal bond, with or without sureties. It has also been provided that in no case will an under trial prisoner be detained beyond the maximum period of imprisonment for which he can be convicted for the alleged offence." It is not in dispute that no retrospective effect has been given to the applicability of the provision section 436-A of Cr.P.C. The provision is applicable only to cases, which have arisen after the amendment was brought into Cr.P.C. (Ref:- Pramod Kumar Saxena Vrs. Union of India, (2008) 9 SCC 685 ). On a plain reading of the provision under section 436-A of Cr.P.C., it is clear that the provision is applicable to a person who has undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence under the law for which the investigation, inquiry or the trial under Cr.P.C. is under progress. Such a person shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties. The exception to the section lies for an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishment under that law. However, in view of the proviso to section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., if the Court feels after hearing the Public Prosecutor that the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence is necessary then the Court has to pass a reasoned order in writing. However, in view of the proviso to section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., if the Court feels after hearing the Public Prosecutor that the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence is necessary then the Court has to pass a reasoned order in writing. Law is well settled that reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. Thus section 436-A of Cr.P.C. is not an unconditional section. A proviso to the same has been enacted by the legislative in its wisdom which contemplates that there might be many situations in a case in which despite the period of detention having exceeded the one-half of the maximum period of sentence provided in the Act, the detention may be further required to be continued. The only thing expected by the Court is that the reasons of such continued detention shall be recorded in writing. Even if a Public Prosecutor moves the Court for such longer period of detention by filing a petition assigning reasons and the Court after considering the reasons mentioned therein feels the continued detention is not necessary, it has to direct release on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties. However, if the delay in the proceeding is caused by the accused or in other words, the delay is attributable to the accused then such period of delay has to be excluded while computing the period of detention for granting bail under this provision. However, if the delay in the proceeding is caused by the accused or in other words, the delay is attributable to the accused then such period of delay has to be excluded while computing the period of detention for granting bail under this provision. Therefore, if the Public Prosecutor is of the opinion that even though a person has already undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offences for which the investigation, inquiry or trial is pending against such person, he has to apply to the concerned Court in session over the matter by filing a petition for continuing the detention assigning reasons. Such a petition is to be filed either on the date when such one-half period expires or prior to that. Notice should be issued to the person under detention before granting an extension as he has a right of hearing and to have his say as to why the continued detention is not necessary. Even though the statute does not specifically provide for issuance of such a notice but it must be read into the provision both in the interest of the accused and the prosecution as well as for doing complete justice between the parties. There is a requirement of principles of natural justice and issuance of notice to the person detained and no prejudice whatsoever can be caused by the issuance of such a notice to any parties. After hearing both the sides and taking into account the grounds taken in the petition for extension of the period of detention, the Court has to pass a reasoned order. Needless to say that if the order goes against the Public Prosecutor or the person detained, it can be challenged in the higher forum by the aggrieved party. It would be in the fitness of things that the Court should post the case to the date when the one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment for the offence expires and in the event no petition for continuing the detention is filed by the Public Prosecutor then the Court has to release the person under detention on his personal bond with or without sureties. There is no necessity even for the accused to file an application for bail in such a situation to avail the beneficial provision. There is no necessity even for the accused to file an application for bail in such a situation to avail the beneficial provision. In the case of Rama Chandra Hansdah (supra), it is held that even a single day delay in release of an undertrial prisoner who is entitled to be released as per section 436-A of Cr.P.C. would amount to serious violation of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and every endeavour is to be made by the authorities to prevent breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by implementation of section 436-A of Cr.P.C. It is also the settled principle of law that speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and if a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Section 436-A Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision which is incorporated by the legislature with a view to ameliorate the conditions of the under trials who are languishing in jail for a long period of time having undergone more than half of the sentence which the offence carries. The said provision cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to deprive the benefit of such beneficial legislation to the under trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5th September 2014, in the case of Vijay Aggarwal Vrs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 32/2013 issued several directions relating to under-trial prisoners considering the provision under section 436-A of the Cr.P.C., which are as follows:- "We, accordingly, direct that jurisdictional Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Sessions Judge shall hold one sitting in a week in each jail/prison for two months commencing from 1st October 2014 for the purposes of effective implementation of section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In its sittings in jail, the above Judicial Officers shall identify the under-trial prisoners who have completed half period of the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under the law and after complying with the procedure prescribed under section 436-A, pass an appropriate order in jail itself for release of such under-trial prisoners who fulfill the requirement of section 436-A for their release immediately. Such jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge shall submit the report of each of such sitting to the Registrar General of the High Court and at the end of two months, the Registrar General of each High Court shall submit the report to the Secretary General of this Court without any delay. To facilitate the compliance of the above order, we direct the Jail Superintendent of each jail/prison to provide all necessary facilities for holding the Court sitting by the above judicial officers. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar General of each High Court, who in turn will communicate the copy of the order to all Sessions Judges within his State for necessary compliance. The above order may be treated as having been passed in the present case as well with regard to consideration of under-trial prisoners." In the case of Bhim Singh Vrs. Union of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605, it is held by the Supreme Court as follows:- "5. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the legislative policy engrafted in section 436-A and large number of undertrial prisoners housed in the prisons, we are of the considered view that some order deserves to be passed by us so that the undertrial prisoners do not continue to be detained in prison beyond the maximum period provided under section 436-A. 6. We, accordingly, direct that jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge shall hold one sitting in a week in each jail/prison for two months commencing from 1-10-2014 for the purposes of effective implementation of section 436- A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In its sittings in jail, the above judicial officers shall identify the undertrial prisoners who have completed half period of the maximum period or maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under the law and after complying with the procedure prescribed under section 436-A pass an appropriate order in jail itself for release of such undertrial prisoners who fulfill the requirement of section 436-A for their release immediately. Such jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge shall submit the report of each of such sittings to the Registrar General of the High Court and at the end of two months, the Registrar General of each High Court shall submit the report to the Secretary General of this Court without any delay. Such jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge shall submit the report of each of such sittings to the Registrar General of the High Court and at the end of two months, the Registrar General of each High Court shall submit the report to the Secretary General of this Court without any delay. To facilitate compliance with the above order, we direct the Jail Superintendent of each jail/prison to provide all necessary facilities for holding the Court sitting by the above judicial officers. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar General of each High Court, who in turn will communicate the copy of the order to all Sessions Judges within his State for necessary compliance." In the case of Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 700, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "16. With regard to the third issue regarding effective implementation of section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short "Cr.P.C."), the affidavit stated that an advisory had been issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India on 17-1-2013 to all the States and Union Territories to implement the provisions of section 436-A Cr.P.C. to reduce overcrowding in prisons. Among the measures suggested in this regard by the Ministry of Home Affairs, was the constitution of a Review Committee in every district with the District Judge in the Chair with the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police as members to meet every three months and review the cases of undertrial prisoners. The Jail Superintendents were also required to conduct a survey of all cases where undertrial prisoners have completed more than one-fourth of the maximum sentence and send a report in this regard to the District Legal Services Committee constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 as well as to the Review Committee. It was also suggested that the prison authorities should educate under trials of their right to bail and the District Legal Services Committee should provide legal aid through empanelled lawyers to the undertrial prisoners for their release on bail or for the reduction of the bail amount. The Home Department of the States was also requested to develop a management information system to ascertain the jail-wise progress in this regard." In the case of Hussain (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "29. To sum up: 29.1. The Home Department of the States was also requested to develop a management information system to ascertain the jail-wise progress in this regard." In the case of Hussain (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "29. To sum up: 29.1. The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that-29.1.1. Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week; 29.1.2. Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years; 29.1.3. Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year; 29.1.4. As a supplement to section 436-A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the trial Courts concerned from time to time; 29.1.5. The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports." 6. Coming to the case in hand, the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken are under sections 120-B, 420, 354, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences are triable by Magistrate and out of those offences, section 420 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes the maximum punishment which is for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with this case since 16.10.2015 and therefore, he has already undergone one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed the certified copy of the entire order sheet of the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara which shows that neither before the expiry of one-half period nor on the date of expiry of such period and even till the date of hearing of the bail application before the Court below, any petition has been filed by the Public Prosecutor praying for the continued detention beyond the one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment. No order has also been passed by the Magistrate for such continued detention. No order has also been passed by the Magistrate for such continued detention. The learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara while rejecting the bail application has taken into account the fact that the further proceeding of the case has been stayed by this Court in CRLREV No.228 of 2016 filed by co-accused Sarat Chandra Patra. In view of the explanation to section 436-A of Cr.P.C., such stay period cannot be excluded while computing the period of detention as it was not at the instance of the petitioner. It cannot also be said that the delay in proceeding has been caused by the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge has further taken into account the pendency of the other cases against the petitioner as well as possibility of threat to the life of the victim and her mother and also chance of terrorizing the prosecution witnesses in the event of release on bail. It is stated at the Bar that except the present case, in all other cases the petitioner is on bail. Since there is no order for continuing the detention of the petitioner for a period longer than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offences, it was not proper on the part of the Court to reject the application for bail on the ground mentioned in the order. The Court could have imposed suitable terms and conditions to see that the liberty is not misutilised by the petitioner. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper. The petitioner shall not try to keep any contact with the victim or any of the prosecution witnesses, shall not try to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date when the case would be posted for trial. Violation of any terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the BLAPL is allowed.