The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2717 of 2025 Sk. Sagha @ Roy ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjaya Narayan Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …... Opposite Party Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 01.05.2025 Order No. 01. FIR/PR No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections 06 18.01.2020 STF, Bhubaneswar Courts’ Name T.R. Case No.47 of 2020 pending in the of court 3rd learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar Section- 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 the 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with STF, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.06 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.47 of 2020 pending in the court of learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for the offences under Section - 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has filed this application for release on bail. 4. The brief fact of the case is that on 18.01.2020 the Dy. Superintendent of Police, STF, CID, CB, Odisha Bhubaneswar received a reliable information from his personal source that one Sk.Fakir of Golapola, Balasore who has a readymade shop in Azimabag near F.M., Collage is with illegal narcotic drugs like brown sugar and he would send a consignment (Brown Sugar) to the present petitioner through a person. It is also stated that the said fact was entered in the station diary and also intimated the same to the superior, Officer. As per the direction of the S.P., the informant along with others formed a team and went to the Sikhar Chandi Basti, where they waiting for the Petitioner. It is also alleged that on the way they had arranged two official witnesses and proceed to the spot. When they learnt that the Petitioner had left his shop by riding a TVS Apache motorcycle and proceeded towards Jayadev Vihar, they Page 2 of 8 3 followed the Petitioner. At about 12.15 P.M., the informant and other raiding party members saw that a tall and slim youth boy was interacting with the Petitioner. The tall boy handed over a black colour polythene carry bag to the Petitioner. Thereafter, they rushed to the spot and caught hold both the culprits. It is further alleged that the informant and the other raiding party members showed their identity card to the accused persons. On being asked about their identity, they disclosed their identity to the informant and others. On completion of due formalities, the raiding party members seized 324 grams of brown sugar from the accused persons at the spot. On being asked, the accused persons could not produce any license for possessing the contraband article. Hence, this case. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is no way connected with the present case. sHe has been falsely implicated by the Informant. He further submits that in the meantime trial of the case has already been started and out of 23 charge-sheeted witnesses,s 11 nos. of witnesses have already been examined. He further submits that the Petitioner is languishing in custody since 19.01.2020. Therefore, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail. Page 3 of 8 4 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 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 Page 4 of 8 5 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.
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 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 5 of 8 6 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 and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court seized of the matter, with the further condition that:- i. ii. 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. Page 6 of 8 7 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. v. The Petitioner shall clean the Infocity Police Station premises for two months. The IIC, Infocity Police Station shall facilitate the Petitioner for cleaning like broom and other cleaning items so that he can clean the premises of the Police Station during the morning hour. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. Page 7 of 8 8 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 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 8 of 8