The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.8878 of 2023 Somanath Amanit Petitioner Mr.Jugala Kishore Panda, Adv. -versus- …. State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 04.09.2023 Sections Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Dated Police Station F.I.R. No. 13 20.01.2020 Orkel Case No. and Courts’ Name T.R. Case No.18 of 2020 arising out of Orkel Case P.S. No.13 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge, Malkangiri Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 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 Orkel P.S. Case No. 13 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 18 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that while the S.I. of Police of Orkel P.S. along with his staff was performing evening patrolling as well as blocking duty on the road connecting to M.V.51 and Surlokonda Hata, near Village M.V.51, found the petitioner along with others were transporting contraband ‘ganja’ in the guise of Kaudia. They apprehended the present petitioner and other co-accused.
Legal Reasoning
They recovered 40 Kgs 500 gms. Of contraband ‘ganja’ from the exclusive and conscious possession of the present petitioner as per weighment chart under Annexure-3 and forwarded him to the jail custody. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration since Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 20.01.2020 which is more than three years. Although the trial has been commenced, only two witnesses have been examined,out the forty witnesses. There is less likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In addition, four co-accused who are similarly situated with the petitioner have already been released on bail by orders of this Court on 03.01.2021 in BLAPL No.11062 of 2022, 15.05.2023 in BLAPL No.1488 of 2023, 03.05.2023 in BLAPL No.2041 of 2023, 03.05.2023 in BLAPL No.1267 of 2023, 14.07.2023 in BLAPL No.7032 of 2023 and 31.07.2023 in BLAPL No.565 of 2023 respectively. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner. However, he agrees to the factum of delayed trail and his detention in Police custody over three years. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 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 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 1 1981)3 SCC 671 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 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 factum of 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 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and conditions with further conditions that: 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.
Decision
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: 16-Sep-2023 16:00:27 Page 6 of 6