The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4631 of 2023 Petitioner Sudarsan Panigrahi Mr.Ananta Narayan Pattanayak, Adv. -versus- …. State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr.D.Mund, AGA CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 26.06.2023 Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station 147 09.08.2020 Jeypore Sadar of Case No. and Courts’ Name T.R.Case No.46 2020 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Koraput- Jeypore 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 27-Jun-2023 17:12:18 Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.147 of 2020 corresponding to T.R.Case No.46 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge- cum Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2020, at about 3 P.M., while the Police were performing patrol duty near Patraput Bridge they found a truck bearing Registration number W.B.-02G 6732 was coming from Machhakund side escorted by another Bolero vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-33 W-3690 wherefrom total ganja was 937.2 Kg. kept in poly packs. They detained all the accused persons including the petitioner who was driver of the Bolero vehicle. On being asked, they disclosed their identities but due to their non- production of authenticated document with respect to such transportation of bulk quantity of ganja, all the contraband ganja was seized from the offending vehicle. After observing all formalities, all the accused persons including the petitioner was arrested and forwarded them to the court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no concrete materials available against the petitioner to connect with the driver of the offending vehicle wherein contraband ganja was being carried. He had no knowledge about the transportation of the ganja in that vehicle. When his vehicle was stopped by Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 27-Jun-2023 17:12:18 // 3 // the raiding party, he came to know that other persons were carrying ganja in other vehicle. However, the Police Officer intentionally implicated him by seizing the vehicle and arrested him. Nothing has been seized from his conscious possession. In the charge sheet no where it has been mentioned about the packing, sealing or transporting from one place to another by the present petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 09.08.2020 which is more than two years. Further, some of the co-accused who are similarly situated with the present petitioner has already been released on bail by this Court vide order date 25.08.2022 in BLAPL No. 10871 of 2021, 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner but concedes that the period of detention has been too long without trial. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court have 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 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 27-Jun-2023 17:12:18 // 4 // 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." 8. 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 Bihar1 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 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. 9. 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 in several 1 1981)3 SCC 671 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 27-Jun-2023 17:12:18 Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 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. 10. Considering the submissions made and the length of detention of the Petitioner in custody as well as release of the co-accused persons, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the court in seisin over the matter shall release the Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. the Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case, he shall not indulge in criminal offence while pond bail and he shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.
Decision
11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) LB Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 27-Jun-2023 17:12:18 Page 5 of 5