Orissa High Court
Dhanurjaya Bhatra vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 6 December, 2023
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 8566 of 2023
Dhanurjaya Bhatra ........ Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Jena, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Mr. Ch. S. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
06.12.2023
Order No.
01.
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Station and
Courts'
Name
13 20.01.2020 Orkel Special Section
T.R. Case 20(b)(ii)(C)
No.18 of of the
2020 NDPS Act.
pending in
the court
of learned
Sessions
Judge-
cum-
Special
Judge,
Malkangiri
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Orkel P.S. Case
No.13 of 2020 corresponding to Special T.R. Case No.18
of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, registered for the
alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for his release
on bail.
4. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 19.01.2020
while the informant and his other staff were performing
patrolling duty in their jurisdiction area, they got
information regarding illegal activity in that locality.
They proceeded to the spot and found that some persons
were transporting the contraband ganja by Kaudia
including the present Petitioner. On being search 1692
Kg and 600 grams of contraband ganja was seized from
the possession of the accused persons.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The
petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 20.01.2020.
Some co-accused persons who are similarly situated
with the Petitioner have already been released on bail by
this Court. Hence, he submits that the petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Hon'ble 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 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 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
Bihar 1wherein it has been held 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. 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
(1981) 3SCC 671
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
prayer for bail of the Petitioner.
10. Let the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing of property surety of Rs.1,00,000/-
(rupees one lakh only) along with two local solvent
sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court in seisin over the matter with some stringent terms
and conditions as deemed just and proper with further
conditions that:
i. the petitioner shall appear before the court
seisin over the matter on each date of posting of
the case;
ii. the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal
activity in future;
iii. the petitioner shall not tamper with the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any
manner;
11. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
12. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands allowed.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack
Date: 10-Dec-2023 13:49:12
