The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.191 of 2025 Chintu Niriki …. Petitioner Mr. Basudev Mishra, Adv. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. Saswat Das, AGA CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No.
Decision
ORDER 20.01.2025 F.I.R. No. 78 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name 07.12.2019 Machhakund T.R No.39(A) of 2019 to corresponding Machhakund P.S. of Case No.78 in 2019 pending the of learned Additional Sessions cum-Special Judge, Koraput Judge- Court Sections Section 21(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with T.R No.39(A) of 2019 corresponding to Machhakund P.S. Case Page 1 of 6 No.78 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 21(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, has filed this application for his release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on 07.12.2019 upon receiving information of the transportation of Ganja by a Bolero car, the SI of Police, Machhakund P.S. & other staff detained two vehicles in connection with the same. The present petitioner was the driver of the car. Contraband Ganja to the tune of 418 Kg 800 grams respectively were recovered from both the vehicles. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution allegations leveled against the present petitioner are false and baseless. The petitioner was caught by the police on suspicion while he was driving in the alleged vehicle from Machhkund to Lamtaput because of non-availability of transportation facilities to remote areas. Moreover, the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 07.12.2019 to 28.05.2020. Then he released on bail on 28.05.2020 and, subsequently he was arrested on 31.05.2023 and still is in custody. In case he is released on bail, he shall abide by any terms and conditions as imposed on him. Page 2 of 6 6. He further contends that the Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy trial is a fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a person in custody for such a long time without any trial is not justified and violative of his fundamental right. The importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vrs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1, wherein the Supreme Court has iterated that: "Speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier judgment dated 26th February, 1979, an essential ingredient of ’reasonable, fair and just" procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the accused. The State cannot be permitted to deny the constitutional right of speedy trial to the accused on the ground that the State has no adequate financial resources to incur the necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." 7. He further argues that the period of long incarceration suffered, which entitles the Petitioner for grant of bail. Right to Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an under trial prisoner and this observations have been resonated, time and again, in several judgments including that of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar2 wherein it has been stated that the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in a country like ours, where the large majority of the accused come 1 1979 AIR 1360 2 (1981) 3 SCC 671 Page 3 of 6 from poorer and weaker sections of the society and are not versed with laws and after face the dearth of competent legal advice. Of course, in a given case, if an accused demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But an accused cannot be disentitled from complaining of infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial. 8. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)3 that incarceration has further deleterious effects where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner. 10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the court in seisin over the matter to 3 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 4 of 6 release the present Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on some stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. iv. the Petitioner shall appear before the court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of the case till conclusion of the trial; the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal activities in future; the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; the Petitioner shall plant 100 saplings of local like mango, neem, tamarind etc. variety around his village over the Government land/ community land/ private land, if it is in the possession of the Petitioner or his family members. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 11. The District Nursery/D.F.O shall extend the helping hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner and the Revenue Authority shall assist the Petitioner in identifying the location for plantation of the saplings. If the land is not available, the Petitioner to approach the Revenue Authority for identifying the land for plantation and the Revenue Authority shall do the needful. 12. The I.I.C. of the concerned Police Station in coordination with the local Forest Officer shall monitor; whether the Petitioner has planted the saplings or not. Page 5 of 6 13. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local Police Station assuring that he will maintain those plants for two years. The said affidavit also be produced before the learned court below at the time of trial. 14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Jan-2025 18:23:22 Page 6 of 6