The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2176 of 2025 Md. Sahajit & Anr. ..…... Petitioners Mr. Sailaza Nanda Das, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 21.04.2025 Order No. 01. Dated
Legal Reasoning
FIR/PR No. Police Station 469 02.02.2023 E.I. & EB, Unit-I, Cuttack Sections Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act Case No. and Courts’ Name 2(a) CC Case No.16 2023 of pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Apr-2025 10:52:05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2 3. The petitioners, who are presently in custody in connection with E.I. and E.B. Cuttack P.R. No. 469 of 2023, corresponding to 2(a) C.C. Case No. 16 of 2023 pending before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, have filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.02.2023 at around 6:10 AM, the present accused persons were allegedly found transporting 110 kilograms of ganja, concealed in five jari bags, in a Tata Tigor car bearing Registration No. JH10-CJ-2447. They were apprehended by the Excise Police near Trisulia Chhak, in front of a petrol pump. The contraband was seized from their possession, leading to the registration of the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband ganja and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by the prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioners have been in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Apr-2025 10:52:05 released on bail. custody since 02.02.2023. Accordingly, it is prayed that they be Page 2 of 6 3
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, keeping the petitioners in prolonged custody without commencement or conclusion of trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights. 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. Learned counsel further submits that the prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Apr-2025 10:52:05 undertrial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Page 3 of 6 4 Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker sections of society and often lack access to competent legal assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right. 8. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata. It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts irreparable Signature Not Verified 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Apr-2025 10:52:05 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 4 of 6 5 harm—especially if the accused is ultimately acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are prioritized and concluded expeditiously. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail, contending that the quantity of ganja seized is well above the threshold of commercial quantity as defined under the Act, thereby attracting the statutory embargo on the grant of bail. 10. Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the petitioners’ custody, it is directed that the petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case, subject to stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court seized of the matter, with the further condition that:- i. The petitioners shall furnish a bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Apr-2025 10:52:05 ii. The Petitioners shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM. Page 5 of 6 6 ii. The Petitioners shall not indulge themselves in any criminal offence while on bail. iii. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner. Any violation of the above conditions shall result in the cancellation of bail.
Decision
11. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Apr-2025 10:52:05 Page 6 of 6