The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2375 of 2025 Tanmaya Bag ..…... Petitioner (s) Mr. Dibya Prakash Mishra, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satapthy, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 24.04.2025 Order No. 01. Dated
Legal Reasoning
FIR/PR No. Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections Sections 276/277/111(4)/61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 read with Sections 21(c)/25/29 of N.D.P.S. Act 0533 23.09.2024 Bargarh C.T. (Sessions) Case No.85/2024 corresponding Bargarh to Town P.S. Case No.85 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh 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 C.T. (Sessions) Case No.85/2024 corresponding to Bargarh Town P.S. Case No.85 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh, has filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Sections 276/277/111(4)/61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 read with Sections 21(c)/25/29 of N.D.P.S. Act of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.09.2024 at 09.30 A.M., the I.I.C., Town P.S., Bargarh received information regarding selling of illegal huge quantity of contraband cough syrup bottles and adulterated liquid cough syrup and that the deal is being carried out amongst the local drug peddlers by the road side near old Reserve, Bargarh. On receipt of such information I.I.C., Town P.S. entered that fact vide G.D. No.03 dated 23.09.2024 as ground of belief under Section 42(2) of N.D.P.S. Act. Thereafter, as per the direction of I.I.C., the informant Page 2 of 8 3 along with staffs proceeded to the spot along with witnesses and after reaching the spot at about 10 A.M., they saw that some persons were sitting at the spot and four persons were busy in selling and dealing of cough syrup and adulterated/noxious liquid to the customers. They also noticed that one Bolero Max bearing Registration No.OD-31-M-5018, one white colour Maruti Suzuki Ertiga vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-17-1359 and one Honda Dream Yoga M/C bearing Registration No.OD-31-2433 were parked by the road side near old Reserve, Bargarh and they were engaged in selling, dealing and distribution of cough syrup and adulterate drugs. On verification of the spot, they found 25 numbers of Cardboard cartoons kept inside the Bolero Max Pick Up vehicle, 5 numbers of cardboard cartoons kept inside the vehicle. On being asked they failed to produce any authentic documents regarding possession and selling of contraband Eskuf cough syrup and adulterated cough syrup.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband cough syrup and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever Page 3 of 8 4 with the alleged offences as claimed by the prosecution. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioners be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 Page 4 of 8 5 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 does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right. 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 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 5 of 8 6 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 and since the co- accused persons have already been released on bail, it is directed that the petitioner 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 petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM. Page 6 of 8 7 ii. The petitioner shall not indulge themselves in any criminal offence while on bail. iii. 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 Petitioners shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants for a period of two years. Page 7 of 8 8 13. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioners by supplying the necessary saplings.
Decision
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: 01-May-2025 18:35:47 Page 8 of 8