The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Sep-2025 16:57:50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.9479 of 2025 Santosh Premnath Dhawele ..…... Petitioner Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 23.09.2025 Dated Police Station F.I.R No. Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 67 18.03.2022 Padampur U/S. 20(b)(ii)(C)/ 29 of the NDPS Act Special G.R Case No.36 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions cum-Special Judge-Padampur Judge- 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Padampur P.S. Case No.67 of 2022, corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.36 of 2022, pending in the court learned Additional Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Sep-2025 16:57:50 Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Padampur, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 18.03.2022 the informant, named, P. Patro, S.I. of Police Padampur along with his staff, received credible information regarding illegal transportation of Ganja. On such information all of them proceeded to Sampia Chhaka along with independent witness. At about 9:30AM one white colour Maruti Swift Dezire Vehicle bearing Regd. No. MH- 16CC-6778 was coming from Gaisilat side in a high speed with suspicious manner. Thereafter, they signaled to stop the vehicle. On seeing the police, two persons got down from the vehicle and fled from the spot. The driver and another person were sitting inside the car. On search, the police personnel found 2 packets of gunny bags inside the dickey of the car which were packed with small poly bags containing 57 Kgs 200 Grams in toto excluding the weight of bags. After performing the formalities of the provisions of NDPS Act, the petitioner along with another co-accused were apprehended from the spot and forwarded to judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 18.03.2022 and in Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Sep-2025 16:57:50 the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted on 13.09.2022. He further submits that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 4 witnesses have been examined, and, therefore, the trial is not expected to be complete in near future. He further submits that for such long detention of the Petitioner in custody when the trial is progressing at a snail space and no such step is being taken by the prosecution to expedite the same, further detention of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the bail application of the petitioner may be favourbaly considered and he may be allowed to go on bail in the interest of justice. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, keeping the petitioners in prolonged custody without commencement or conclusion of trial is unjustified and amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights. 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 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Sep-2025 16:57:50 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." 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every under trial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker sections of society and often lack access to competent legal assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this right. 1 (1981) 3 SCC 671. Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Sep-2025 16:57:50 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata. It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts irreparable harm—especially if the accused is ultimately acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are prioritized and concluded expeditiously. 8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. 9. Without going into the merit of the case and considering the facts and submission made; prayer of the petition is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in connection with the above mentioned case subject them furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in 2 SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023. Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Sep-2025 16:57:50 seisin over the matter, who shall be at liberty to impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper with further conditions that:- i. the Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case till ii. iii. conclusion of the trial without fail; the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; the Petitioner shall appear before his local P.S. i.e. at Pathardi, P.S. in the District of Ahamadnagar, State-Maharashtra and report before the I.O. once in a week i.e. on every Monday in between 10 am to 2 pm till conclusion of the trial. Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to the cancellation of the bail.
Decision
10. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Gitanjali Page 6 of 6