Cuttack, Aug. 31: Orissa High Court expressed has shock after finding that a person granted bail by it nearly five years ago has still been languishing in jail.

The court said: 'A citizen remaining in custody after being enlarged on bail, on account of inability to satisfy the conditions imposed in the bail order, shows the entire system in a poor light,'

A Bonda person from Malkangiri, Sama Kirsani, had filed an appeal petition against the order of court of additional sessions judge, Malkangiri, convicting him for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment on May 15, 2007. On October 5, 2012, the high court granted Sama bail. The additional sessions judge, Malkangiri, had fixed certain terms and conditions for his release. However, Sama could not get bail as he failed to satisfy the terms and conditions. As a result, despite being released on bail, he has been languishing in custody for all these years.

The division bench of Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Biswajt Mohanty said: 'This shows lack of sensitivity of all concerned. In such background, the state defence counsel, or for that matter, the Malkangiri sub-jail superintendent ought to have taken steps for appropriately modifying the conditions to ensure the appellant's release.'

'It is also surprising as to how such an important thing has escaped the notice of the concerned district and sessions judge during his monthly jail visits. A little proactive role on part of the learned district and sessions judge would also have helped the matter to a great extent,' the bench observed in its Monday order.

'In such background, we order that copies of this judgment be sent to the state's home secretary and the Odisha State Legal Services Authority, who would sensitise all stakeholders, including all jail superintendents, so that such unfortunate thing does not recur in future vis-à-vis socio-economically deprived section of the society,' the bench said.

While allowing the appeal petition, the bench said: 'There being no evidence of any nature to implicate the appellant, we acquit the appellant from the charge under Section 302 IPC, and accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and direct that the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.'

The high court issued the acquittal order after taking note that there was no material evidence to justify the conviction for murder, there were no eyewitnesses, the informant - son of the deceased - had not been examined and prosecution had examined only a constable and the investigating officer.