The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 1465 of 2024 Kartika Behera -Versus- ..…... Petitioner Mr. A.S. Paul, Adv. State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 05.04.2024 Dated P.R No. Police Station Sections Case No. and Courts’ Name Order No. 01. 133 27.11.2019 Khordha T.R. Section 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act. Case of No.82 2019 pending in the court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, under NDPS Act, Khordha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIgh Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 08-Apr-2024 11:19:00 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioner being in custody in Khordha P.R. Case No.133 of 2019-2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.82 of 2019, pending in the court of the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, under NDPS Act, Khordha, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution case is that on 27.11.2019 at about 4.00 A.M. while the informant and his staff were performing patrolling duty on N.H.I6 near Collectorate, Khordha got reliable information that one numberless Maruti Suzuki Car was coming from Khordha Town. Getting such information, they detained the said vehicle and on being searched, they found 56 kgs of contraband ganja in three jari basta each containing 20 kgs each in two basta and 16 kgs in one basta. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had no knowledge regarding transportation of contraband ‘ganja’. He has been falsely implicated in this case and the Petitioner is no way connected with the offences as alleged by the prosecution in any manner. Moreover, the Petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2019. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIgh Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 08-Apr-2024 11:19:00 may be enlarged on bail. Page 2 of 5 3 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Hon'ble 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. vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, wherein the Hon'ble 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 entitle 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 Bihar 1wherein it has been held 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 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIgh Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 08-Apr-2024 11:19:00 1 (1981) 3SCC 671 4 country like ours, where the large majority of the accused come 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)2 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 prayer for bail of the Petitioner. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIgh Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 08-Apr-2024 11:19:00 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 Page 4 of 5 5 10. Without going into the merit of the case and based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of detention of the Petitioner in custody, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that:- i. the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii. he shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail and iii he shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner. 11. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 12. Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of. 13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIgh Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 08-Apr-2024 11:19:00 Page 5 of 5