Susanta Sethi vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 6307 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         BLAPL No.245 of 2023
           Susanta Sethi                  ....              Petitioner

                                              Mr.Chandan Samantaray,
                                                            Advocate

                                   -versus-
          State of Odisha                      ....       Opp.Party
                                                Mr.G.R. Mohapatra,
                                       Additional Standing Counsel.



                  CORAM:
                  DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI



  Order                             ORDER
  No.                              17.05.2023

F.I.R. Dated     Police Station  Case No. and         Sections
 No.                            Courts' Name
0082 07.05.2020

Sahadevkhunta Special Case 21(b)/29 of the N.D.P.S.Act.

                                No.89 of 2020
                                pending     in
                                the court of
                                learned     3rd
                                Addl.Sessions
                                Judge-cum-
                                Special Judge,
                                Balasore

02. 1. This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

// 2 //

3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with

Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No.82 of 2020 corresponding to

Special Case No.89 of 2020, pending in the court of the

learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,

Balasore, registered for the alleged commission of offence

under Section 21(b)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act has filed this

application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for his release on

bail.

4. It is alleged against the petitioner that on 06.03.2020 at

about 6 P.M. the informant who is Deputy

Superintendent of Police, S.T.F., CID, CB, Odisha,

Bhubaneswar along with her staff, acting on a tip-off,

concerning illegal trading of narcotic drugs at Nayabazr ,

Baleswar, conducted raid in the area and found the

present petitioner covering a napkin on his body was

found concealing something in his chest while another

accused was following him. Being identified by the spy,

the informant and his staff detained the accused persons

and recovered brown sugar weighing 629 grams, from

the conscious and exclusive possession of the present

accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is an innocent person. He has been falsely

// 3 //

implicated in the alleged crime. It is further submitted

that nothing was seized from the exclusive and conscious

possession of the present accused. Out of twenty seven

witnesses, seven witnesses have been examined and none

of them has indicted him for the offence. There is less

likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future.

Additionally, there is no chance of fleeing from the

course of justice, if the petitioner is released on bail. The

petitioner has been languishing in custody since

07.03.2020 which is more than three years.

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed

the prayer for bail of the Petitioner.

7. 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 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

// 4 //

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. Without going into the merits of the case and

considering the submissions made coupled with the

length of detention of the Petitioner in custody without

trial 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:

i. the Petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case, ii. he shall not indulge in criminal offence while on bail and iii. he shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

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

9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

// 5 //

10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on

proper application.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

LB