The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.8021 of 2023 Petitioner Deepak Gouda Mr. P. K. Sahoo, Adv. -versus- …. State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) N.D.P.S. Act. of the
Decision
Order No. Dated Police Station F.I.R. No. ORDER 31.07.2023 Case No. and Courts’ Name 0120 30.10.2020 Baipariguda T.R. Case of No.80 2020 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Jeypore, District- Koraput 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The petitioner being in custody since 30.10.2020 in connection with Baipariguda P.S. Case No. 126 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.80 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore, District- Koraput registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.10.2020 while the S.I. of Police of the Boipariguda P.S. along with his police staff were on patrolling and M.V. checking duty of N.H. plying vehicles in Boipariguda P.S. area, at about 12.00 noon on N.H.-326 road near Batriput Chawk, they intercepted one green colour John Deere-5103 Tractor without number plate coming from Malkangiri side. On seeing the police personnel, the accused tried to escape but he was caught hold by the police personnel. On verification of the vehicle, four numbers of polythene bags containing contraband ganja weighting about 100 kgs were recovered. As the accused failed to show any valid document with respect to possession and transportation of such huge amount of contraband ganja, the S.I. of Police Page 2 of 6 // 3 // seized the same including other incriminating materials and arrested him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution allegations leveled against the present petitioner is false, baseless and concocted. There is no material evincing that the petitioner is connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioner did not possess the contraband articles and no prima facie case is made against the present petitioner. That apart, out of seventeen witnesses, eight witnesses have already been examined. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 30.10.2020 which is more than two years. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the 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: Page 3 of 6 // 4 // "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 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 1 1981)3 SCC 671 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 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 in jail custody, 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: 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 5 of 6 // 6 // i. ii the Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case, he shall not indulge in any criminal offence while on bail and iii. he shall not tamper with the evidence of any the prosecution witnesses manner. in Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Sumitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 02-Aug-2023 14:38:25 Page 6 of 6