In a landmark judgment reinforcing the sanctity of personal liberty, the Orissa High Court ordered the release of Basudev Behera, an undertrial detained for over seven years in financial fraud cases. Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial violates constitutional rights, stating, “Liberty is the breath of life. Sans it, it’s like a bird with crippled wings.” The court prioritized statutory safeguards under Section 436A of the CrPC over procedural bail conditions, marking a victory for undertrial rights.
Case Background
Basudev Behera faced five criminal cases for allegedly defrauding individuals through his real estate firm, M/s. Satyam Sai Infratech. Complainants accused him of accepting lakhs of rupees for land deals that never materialized. FIRs implicated him under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery), 471 (using forged documents), and Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (OPID) Act, which prescribes up to ten years imprisonment.
Despite being granted bail in 2019, Behera remained jailed due to his inability to furnish cash securities ranging from ₹40,000 to ₹5 lakhs. Repeated pleas to modify bail conditions were partially granted, but he still couldn’t comply. After seven years in custody, he sought release under Section 436A CrPC, which mandates bail if an undertrial completes half the maximum sentence period. The trial court rejected his plea, citing prior bail orders, prompting him to approach the High Court.
Legal Provisions Invoked
Section 436A CrPC: Requires courts to release undertrials who have served half the maximum sentence for non-death penalty offences.
Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including a speedy trial.
OPID Act, Section 6: Penalizes default in deposit repayments with up to ten years imprisonment.
Court’s Observations
Justice Mishra underscored the statutory mandate of Section 436A CrPC, referencing Supreme Court precedents:
In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the SC ruled that prolonged detention without trial infringes Article 21. The court noted, “The word ‘shall’ in Section 436A signifies its mandatory nature… delays not attributable to the accused warrant immediate relief.”
The Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) judgment highlighted Section 436A as a tool to prevent “undue incarceration,” stressing the state’s duty to expedite trials.
The High Court observed that Behera’s seven-year custody exceeded half the maximum ten-year sentence under the OPID Act. Justice Mishra remarked, “Procedural bail conditions cannot overshadow fundamental rights. Inability to furnish securities reflects the onerous nature of such terms.”
Referencing Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015), where the SC directed jail visits to identify eligible undertrials, the court stressed the need for proactive judicial measures to uphold liberty.
Case Title: Basudev Behera v. State of Odisha
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Bijay Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Advocate for OPID
