The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2363 of 2025 Debanand Bag & Anr. ..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satapthy, ASC Order No. 01. FIR/PR No. 121 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 24.04.2025 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 30.01.2025 District Mobile Unit, Nuapada Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act Case P.R. No.121/2024- 2025 corresponding to S.A. Case No.04/2025 in pending the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Nuapada 2 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The petitioners are in custody in connection with P.R. Case No.121/2024-2025 corresponding to S.A. Case No.04/2025 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada, has filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.2025 while the informant along with other staffs were performing patrolling duty in the local area, at that time, they found that two persons were carrying some contraband article in a jery bag. It is also alleged that after due formalities, when the informant along with others verified the jari bag, they found that 12 k.g. of ganja were transported by the present Petitioners. It is also alleged that on being asked they were unable to produce any document with regard possession of ganja and thereafter the informant seized the contraband articles and also arrested they accused persons at the spot. Page 2 of 7 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband ganja. 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 custody since 30.01.2025 and the final P.R. has already been submitted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioners be released on bail. 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 Page 3 of 7 4 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 Petitioners 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 undertrial 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. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners 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 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 5 of 7 6 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 appear before the local Police Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM. 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. iv. The Petitioners, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around their village on government land, community land, or private land in the possession of the petitioner or their 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. Page 6 of 7 7 11. The I.I.C. of the concerned police station, in coordination with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the Petitioners have planted the saplings as required. 12. It is further directed that the Petitioners shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have been planted and that the petitioners 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 petitioners by supplying the necessary saplings. 14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Sumitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-May-2025 18:30:23 Page 7 of 7