Rama Pera v. State of Odisha

Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP Order No. 02. CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 24.10.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

This is the 3rd bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Baunsuni PS Case No.150 of 2023 corresponding to Spl. Case No.121 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Boudh, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, on the main allegation of transporting 140Kgs 750Grams of Contraband Ganja in a Bajaj Maxima Auto without displaying any Regd. No. along with co-accused persons.

Heard, Mr. Biswa Ranjan Dalei, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

3.1. In response to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a report was called for from the learned trial Court, who in its report has stated that no delay has been in fact occasioned after 11.03.2025 due to non-cooperation from the part of the petitioner, but the petitioner was in fact granted liberty by this Court in BLAPL No.9610 of 2024 disposed of on

11.03.2025 to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within three months thence and such time was in fact granted to the petitioner because the learned trial Court has undertaken then to dispose of the case within three months. The report further indicates that only six out of eleven witnesses have been examined and one witness has been declined by the prosecution and, therefore, some more time would be required for disposal of the case, but it is not disputed that the petitioner is in custody since

02.11.2023 and in the meantime, more than two and half years have elapsed. Right to speedy trial is an integral and fundamental right of an accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, denial of bail only to keep the accused in confinement without proper progress of trial amounts to deprivation of liberty. No doubt, the quantity of Contraband Ganja allegedly seized in this case being commercial in nature, the petitioner has to satisfy the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, but the statutory embargo cannot override the constitutional mandate. In such view of the matter and taking into account the custody period of the petitioner, this Court considers that the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS may be dispensed with for the petitioner at this stage.

For the reason stated hereinabove and the trial being not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits the petitioner to bail.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per

Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Oct-2025 10:57:09