The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1578 of 2023 Petitioner Prem Khara Mr.Rajib Lochan Pattnaik,Adv. -versus- …. State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. Dated Police Station F.I.R. No. 229 23.09.2019 Malkangiri Sections Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/27(a) of the NDPS Act.
Decision
ORDER 23.08.2023 Case No. and Courts’ Name T.R.Case No.113 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Malkangiri 01. 1. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 3. The petitioner being in custody in Malkangiri P.S. Case No.229 of 2019 corresponding to T.R. case No. 113 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Malkangiri for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, has filed this application. 4. The prosecution case, as narrated in the FIR, is that on 22.09.2019, the informant-Rudra Madhab Muduli, S.I. of Police along with his staff, while performing patrolling duty on the main road of Malkangiri to Balimela at Goudaguda Chhak, stopped one Hyundai Santro car with four persons sitting inside the vehicle. On enquiry, it was found that they carried polythene bag containing contraband ganja. The Police seized 100 Kg 560 grams from their possession. Thereafter, the Police arrested him after observing all the formalities. The petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 23.09.2019. Some co-accused persons who are similarly situated with the petitioner have already released on bail by order dated 08.08.2022 in BLAPL No.1860 of 2021, 01.09.2021 in BLAPL No.7333 of 2020 and 14.02.2023 in BLAPL No.13144 of 2022. 5. 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 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 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: it is "Speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier judgment dated 26th February, 1979, an essential ingredient of 'reasonable, fair and just" procedure the guaranteed by Article 21 and 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 the necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." further argues the period of resources financial incur that to 6. He 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 Bihar1 wherein 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 country like ours, where the large majority of the 1 1981)3 SCC 671 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 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. 7. 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. 8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner but concedes the detention of the petitioner in custody for more than three years. 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 9. Without going into the merit of the matter at this stage and based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of detention of the petitioner in custody without trial, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by the court in seisin over the matter on some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. iv. v. The petitioner shall furnish two local sureties for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) each, out of which one shall be his relative or friend; he shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case; the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity in future; the petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; the Appellant shall report before the local Police Station on every alternate Sunday in between 10 A.M. to 1 P.M. Noon till completion of the trial. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 10. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands allowed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2023 12:32:24 Sumitra Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Page 5 of 5