The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 4122 of 2024 Ram Rajak and Anr. ..…... Petitioners Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Iswar Mohanty, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 15.05.2024 Dated F.I.R No. Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections Order No. 01. 30 31.03.2020 Machhakund T.R. Section 20(b)(ii)(c) /29 of the NDPS Act. Case of No.22 2020 in pending the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Koraput Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 16-May-2024 10:49:35 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The Petitioners being in custody in Machhakund P.S. Case No. 30 of 2020, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 22 of 2020 pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput for the commission of the alleged offence Punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of N.D.P.S Act, have filed this Petition for their release on bail. 4. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2020, after having received information regarding transportation of contraband ‘ganja’ in a Maruti Omini Van bearing Regd. No. OR-15-E-9800 from Jalaput side towards Similiguda via Sagar, the Police proceeded to Lamtaput-Padwa road near Sagar Chhak. The Police interrupted the said van and upon verification, they found four occupants and four numbers of white coloured tinsel bags from which acute smell of ‘ganja’ was being emitted. On being asked, all the four occupants of the said Van disclosed their names as Rahidas, Binod Bagh, Ram Rajak and Md. Sonu. The Police investigated and seized 104. 700 kg of ‘ganja’ from the exclusive possession of the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have no knowledge regarding transportation of contraband ‘ganja’. They have been falsely implicated in this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 16-May-2024 10:49:35 Page 2 of 6 case and the Petitioners are no way connected with the offences as alleged by the prosecution in any manner. Moreover, the Petitioners are in custody since 31.03.2020. Hence, he submits that the Petitioners may be enlarged on bail. Further, some of the co-accused have also been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No.1760 of 2022 and on the basis of principle of parity the present Petitioner deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy trial is a fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a person in 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. 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 for resources to improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." incur the necessary expenditure needed Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 16-May-2024 10:49:35 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 Bihar 1wherein it has been held 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 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. 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)2 that incarceration has further deleterious effects where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 16-May-2024 10:49:35 1 (1981) 3SCC 671 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 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 prayer for bail of the Petitioners. 10. Without going into the merit of the case and based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of detention of the Petitioners in custody, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that:- i. the petitioners shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii. the Petitioners shall not indulge themselves in any criminal offence while on bail. iii. the Petitioners shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner and Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 16-May-2024 10:49:35 iv. the Petitioners shall plant 200 trees pertaining to local species of plants like mango, tamarind, neem etc. around their village. 11. The concerned Police Station shall monitor as to whether the Petitioners have planted the tree or not. 12. The District Nursery shall extend the helping hand by supplying sapling to the Petitioners for the purpose of plantation. 13. Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions may entail cancellation of the bail granted to the Petitioners. 14. The BLAPL, is accordingly, disposed of. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 16-May-2024 10:49:35 Page 6 of 6