Deepak Gouda vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 8265 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          BLAPL No.8021 of 2023
           Deepak Gouda               ....                Petitioner
                                             Mr. P. K. Sahoo, Adv.
                                 -versus-
           State of Odisha            ....          Opposite Party
                                           Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC

                   CORAM:
                   DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

  Order                             ORDER
  No.                              31.07.2023

          Dated       Police      Case No.           Sections
F.I.R.
                      Station   and Courts'
 No.
                                   Name
0120     30.10.2020

Baipariguda T.R. Case 20(b)(ii)(C) of the No.80 of N.D.P.S. Act.

pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge, Jeypore, District-

Koraput

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

// 2 //

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner being in custody since 30.10.2020 in

connection with Baipariguda P.S. Case No. 126 of 2020

corresponding to T.R. Case No.80 of 2020 pending in the

Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special

Judge, Jeypore, District- Koraput registered for the alleged

commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 and 29

of the NDPS Act has filed this petition for his release on

bail.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on

30.10.2020 while the S.I. of Police of the Boipariguda P.S.

along with his police staff were on patrolling and M.V.

checking duty of N.H. plying vehicles in Boipariguda P.S.

area, at about 12.00 noon on N.H.-326 road near Batriput

Chawk, they intercepted one green colour John Deere-5103

Tractor without number plate coming from Malkangiri

side. On seeing the police personnel, the accused tried to

escape but he was caught hold by the police personnel. On

verification of the vehicle, four numbers of polythene bags

containing contraband ganja weighting about 100 kgs were

recovered. As the accused failed to show any valid

document with respect to possession and transportation of

such huge amount of contraband ganja, the S.I. of Police

// 3 //

seized the same including other incriminating materials

and arrested him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

prosecution allegations leveled against the present

petitioner is false, baseless and concocted. There is no

material evincing that the petitioner is connected with the

offence as alleged by the prosecution. Furthermore, the

petitioner did not possess the contraband articles and no

prima facie case is made against the present petitioner.

That apart, out of seventeen witnesses, eight witnesses

have already been examined. The petitioner has been

languishing in custody since 30.10.2020 which is more than

two years.

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the

bail prayer of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues 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 Secretary,

State of Bihar, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

iterated that:

// 4 //

"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

legal advice, the application of the said NDPS Rule is

wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an

1981)3 SCC 671

// 5 //

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 length of

detention in jail custody, 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 Petitioner

on bail in the aforesaid case on stringent terms and

conditions with further conditions that:

SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023

// 6 //

i. the Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case,

ii he shall not indulge in any criminal offence while on bail and

iii. he shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.

11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

Sumitra

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack