The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1937 of 2024 Sarfuddin Alli State of Odisha …. Petitioner Mr. Julu Khansama, Adv. -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. Gyanaranjan Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Sections Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Decision
Order No. ORDER 06.04.2024 Dated Case No. and Police F.I.R. No. Courts’ Name Station 0054 16.03.2020 Rairakhol Rairakhol P.S. Case No.54/2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.11/81 of 2020-21 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Rairakhol 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Apr-2024 18:34:44 counsel for the State. Page 1 of 5 3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Rairakhol P.S. Case No.54/2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.11/81 of 2020-21, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-(Special Court), Rairakhol, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The allegation as made in the F.I.R. reveals that on 16.03.2020 at about 3.25 pm at the time of patrolling duty the informant along with his Official staffs near Tareni Temple saw that one Bolero Maxi having registration No. OD-27-A-8518 coming with high speed. Accordingly, they detained the said vehicle and upon search of the vehicle the Police personnel seized 24 kg of Ganja. The Petitioner was, accordingly, arrested. 5. He further submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been seized from the possession of the present Petitioner. He is in custody since 17.03.2020. Some co-accused persons who stand on similar footing, have already been released on bail. He further contends that the trial has not yet commenced. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Apr-2024 18:34:44 Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy trial is a fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a person in Page 2 of 5 custody for such a long time without any trial is not justified and violative of his fundamental right. The importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vrs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1, wherein the 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. He further argues that the period of long incarceration suffered, which entitle the Petitioner for grant of bail. Right to Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an under trial prisoner and this observations have been resonated, time and again, in several judgments including that of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar2 wherein it has been stated that the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in a country Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Apr-2024 18:34:44 1 1979 AIR 1360 2 (1981) 3 SCC 671 Page 3 of 5 like ours, where the large majority of the accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society and are not versed with laws and after face the dearth of competent legal advice, the application of the said NDPS Rule is wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But an accused cannot be disentitled from complaining of infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial. 8. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)3 that incarceration has further deleterious effects where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Apr-2024 18:34:44 3 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 4 of 5 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court directs that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by furnishing cash security of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two local solvent sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. the Petitioner shall appear before the court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of the case till completion of trial; the Petitioner shall not criminal activities in future; the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; indulge in any Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Ayaskanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Apr-2024 18:34:44 Page 5 of 5