The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4876 of 2023 Petitioner Suraj Ray @ Kumar Mr.Ananta Narayan Pattanayak, Adv. -versus- …. State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr.D.Mund, AGA CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No.
Decision
ORDER 23.06.2023 Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. F.I.R. No. 57 Dated Police Station 21.06.2020 Kakiriguma T.R.Case Case No. and Courts’ Name NO.34 of 2020 pending in the court of Addl.Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Koraput 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Kakiriguma (Koraput) P.S.Case No.57 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. case No.34 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput, registered for the Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 13:49:25 // 2 // alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 an 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 24.06. 2020, at about 11 A.M., the Police proceeded to Goudaguda receiving an information regarding alleged transportation of ganja in a Bolero Van. It was alleged that at about 12.30 P.M., the Police detected the Bolero moving towards Gudaguda and detained the said vehicle and found five jari bags kept in the dala of the said van. The Police seized 148 Kg. 300 gram of ganja from the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the driver of the offending vehicle and he was carrying out the instructions of the owner. He has no knowledge about the transportation of the ganja in the said vehicle. Though the investigation in the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, the trial is yet to commence in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2020 which is about three years. Further, the some co-accused persons who are similarly situated with the present petitioner have already been released on bail by this Court vide order date 12.10. in BLAPL No. 6836 of 2022, order dated 27.09.2022 in BLAPL No. 7512 of 2022, order dated 19.05.2022 in BLAPL No. 11659 of 2021. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 13:49:25 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 13:49:25 1 1981)3 SCC 671 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 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 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 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Jun-2023 13:49:25 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 // 5 // 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 on 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. 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: 26-Jun-2023 13:49:25 Page 5 of 5