The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2726 of 2025 Balaram Das ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …... Opposite Party Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 01. ORDER 01.05.2025 FIR No. 75 1. 2. 3. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 10.02.2021 Dhenkanal C.T. (Special) Case No.03 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal Section- 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the Parties. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.75 of 2021 corresponding to C.T. (Special) Case No.03 of 2021 pending in the court of learned 2 Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal for the offences under Section - 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 has filed this application for release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 10.02.2021 at about 3.00 P.M., the Inspector Namita Nayak received credible information that three persons were in possession of huge quantity of contraband Ganja. They transporting the same by means of grey colour SAFARI vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02BA-1008. She further learnt that they likely to pass through Dhenkanal by-pass and would proceed towards Bhubaneswar. After entering the fact in Station Diary Entry, she proceeded to Korian by-pass with her staff. At about 3.45 P.M. the said vehicle came and the vehicle was detained, and there three persons were found inside the vehicle. The person who driving the vehicle disclosed his name as Balaram Das. After observing all formalities, the informant recovered 33 nos. of packets from the said vehicle and on being weighed found 34 kg. 485 grams of Ganja including the jerry packets. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is no way connected with the present case He has been falsely implicated by the Informant. He further submits Page 2 of 7 3 that the allegations against the Petitioner is that he was involved in transportation of ganja in the SAFARI vehicle which was on the driver’s seat. But nobody was there in the said vehicle. He further submits that this Petitioner being the employee of the vehicle he was to carry out the directions of the owner of the vehicle. In the circumstance, he was having no knowledge as to the keeping of the materials in the vehicle. He further submits that the Petitioner is languishing in custody since 10.02.2021. In the meantime, charge-sheet has been filed on 04.07.2022. Therefore, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 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 Page 3 of 7 4 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 for the Petitioner 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 under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme 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 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. Page 4 of 7 5 does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right.
Legal Reasoning
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner 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 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. 10. Without entering into the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration of the petitioner’s custody, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case subject to stringent terms 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 5 of 7 6 and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned Court in seisin over the matter, with the further condition that:- i. ii. iii. The petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on Government land, community land, or private land in the possession of the petitioner or his family members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying land for the plantation. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 11. 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 as required. 12. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the Page 6 of 7 7 saplings have been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants for a period of two years. 13. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings. 14.
Decision
The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-May-2025 18:04:57 Page 7 of 7