The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.8633 of 2023 Mithilesh Kumar Dube State of Odisha …. Petitioner Mr. T.N. Murty, Adv. -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. Gyanaranjan Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 02.01.2024 Sections Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. F.I.R. No. 65 Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name 12.08.2020 Damanjodi T.R. Case No.46 2020 of pending in the court of learned Additional 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 being in custody in connection with Damanjodi P.S. Case No.65 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Jan-2024 19:08:18 Case No.46 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput, Page 1 of 5 // 2 // registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The allegation as made in the F.I.R. reveals that 453 Kg. 390 grams of Ganja kept in gunny bags was recovered and seized from the two vehicles during course of patrolling conducted by the S.I. of Police alongwith other staffs at Marichamal Chowk. In both the vehicles there were five occupants. The Petitioner was escorting the two vehicles loaded with ‘Ganja’. However, on failure on the part of the Petitioner to produce any document or authority regarding such possession and transportation, they seized the contraband Ganja alongwith the vehicles. 5. He further submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been seized from the possession of the present Petitioner. He is in custody since 12.08.2020. Some co-accused persons who stand on similar footing, have already been released on bail. He further contends that the trial has not yet commenced. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 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 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Jan-2024 19:08:18 // 3 // importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, wherein the 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." 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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Jan-2024 19:08:18 1 1981)3 SCC 671 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 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. 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 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 bail prayer of the Petitioner. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court directs that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Jan-2024 19:08:18 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by furnishing cash security/property surety of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) besides a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two local solvent sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that: i. ii. iii. the Petitioner shall appear before the court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of the case till completion of trial; the Petitioner shall not criminal activities in future; the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; indulge in any Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Ayaskanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Jan-2024 19:08:18 Page 5 of 5