The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3310 of 2025 Tikeswar Mahakur ..…... Petitioner Mr. Hemanta Kumar Mohanta, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 06.05.2025 Dated Police Station Case No. Sections Order No. 01.
Legal Reasoning
FIR/ PR No. 159 28.10.2023 Jharpokharia Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and Courts’ Name 2(a) CC Case No.18 of 2023 arising out of Jharpokharia P.S. Excise No.159 of 2023-24 pending in the court of 2 learned Special Court-cum-1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with (a) CC Case No.18 of 2023 arising out of Jharpokharia Excise P.S. No.159 of 2023-24 pending in the court of learned Special Court-cum-1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada, has filed the present application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 28.10.2023, the Inspector of Excise District Mobile Unit Mayurbhanj received an information from the reliable source regarding illegal transportation of contraband ganja in a Bolero Max Pick up bearing Regd. No. OD-02-CJ-6676. Thereafter, they constituted a team for raid and went to the Bombay Chhak. At about 7.10 Page 2 of 7 3 A.M. morning, when the aforesaid vehicle came, they detained the same. After search, they found four numbers of white basta packed with contraband ganja. After verification of the white basta, they found total 62 kg 860 gm. Thereafter, they seized all the basta and sealed the same along with the alleged vehicle.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband ganja. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by the prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner has been in custody since 05.03.2025. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail. 6. 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 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. Page 3 of 7 4 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. 7. 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 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 4 of 7 5 these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are prioritized and concluded expeditiously. 8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized is greater than commercial quantity weighing 62 kg 860 grams. In such premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve for bail. 9. 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 with 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. ii. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail. iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner. Page 5 of 7 6 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings. Page 6 of 7 7 13. It is made clear that if the charge sheet has not been filed, the Petitioner shall not be released on bail by the court in seisin over the matter.
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: 19-May-2025 15:34:40 Page 7 of 7