Orissa High Court
Sukra Matam vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 12 December, 2023
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.11351 of 2023
Sukra Matam .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajib Lochan Pattnaik, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.Gyana Ranjan Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 12.12.2023
Dated Police
Case No. Sections
F.I.R.
and Courts'
Station
No.
Name
73 11.06.2021 Chitrakonda Special G.R. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
Police Case No.56- the N.D.P.S. Act.
Station A/2021
arising out
of
Chitrakonda
P.S. Case
No.73 dated
11.06.2021
pending in
the Court of
learned
Sessions
Judge-cum-
Special
Judge,
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 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
Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.73 of 2021 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.56 of 2021(A) pending in the court of learned
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri 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. It is alleged in the FIR that on 11.06.2021 while the
Police team was conducting patrolling duty, on getting
reliable information, detained two vehicles i.e. one black-
red colour Bajaj CT-100 Motorcycle bearing registration
No.OR-10-J-0386 and one Bajaj Maxima Auto bearing
registration no.OD-30A-0253 at about 00.33 A.M. near
Rajabandh village chowk. Though one occupant of the
Auto was detained by the Police personnel, the riders of
the motorcycle and the driver of the Auto managed to
escape from the spot taking advantage of the darkness.
After obtaining formalities, they seized 310 kg. 500 grms of
Ganja kept in 12 numbers of jari bags, wherein the
Petitioner was an occupant of the said
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 3 //
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is in custody since 11.09.2023. He further
submits that the Petitioner was travelling in the said
motorcycle with another person when the police stopped
and raided the Auto. He further submits that there is no
conclusive proof that the contraband materials belong to
the present Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that
the co-accused person has already been released on bail by
this Court vide order dated 10.11.2023 passed in BLAPL
No.10647 of 2022.
7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the
bail prayer of the Petitioner.
8. 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
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
Digitally Signed guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 4 //
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."
9. He further argues that the period of long incarceration
suffered, which entitles 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
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
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA 1981)3 SCC 671
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 5 //
his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask
for or insist upon a speedy trial.
10. 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.
11. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and the factum of release of the co-
accused person on bail, this Court is inclined to release the
present Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that
the court in seisin over the matter shall release the
Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms
and conditions with further conditions that:
i. he shall appear before the learned trial court
on each date of posting of the case;
ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge in any
criminal activity in future;
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 6 //
iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
