Orissa High Court
Ram Babu Kumar vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 28 November, 2023
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.4875 of 2022
Ram Babu Kumar .... Petitioner
Mr. S. S. Ray 2, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC.
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 28.11.2023
Dated Police Case No. Sections
F.I.R.
Station and Courts'
No.
Name
0026 20.02.2021
Bisam T.R. case 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act.
Katak No. 43 of
pending in
the court of
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge-cum-
Special
Judge,
Gunupur
22. 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 in connection with
Bisam Katak P.S. case No.26 of 2021 corresponding to T.R.
case No.43 of 2021 pending in the court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur,
registered for the alleged commission of offence under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act has filed this
application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for his release on
bail.
4. The brief fact of the case is that on 20.02.2021 at about
3.25 P.M. while the informant S.I. of Police of Bissamkatak
Police Station along with his staffs were checking the
vehicles, found one white colour car followed by one truck
coming in high speed from Karla Ghati side. Seeing the
police team from a distance of 200 meters, the car stopped,
two occupants got down there from and fled away
towards and nearby forest. When the truck was stopped,
the police personnel detained the petitioner-driver along
with three others who were boarded the truck. On being
frantically searched, they recovered huge quantity of
'Ganja' kept in 38 plastic packets each containing six
packets wrapped with cello tape weighing 5 Kg. 100 grams
// 3 //
each. On being asked, the Petitioner including others could
not produce the authenticated documents in respect of
such transportation. After observing all formalities, they
seized the contraband 'Ganja' along with the vehicles.
Thereafter, the informant has registered the case against
the petitioner and other accused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
this case. The petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2021. In
the event of his release on bail, he shall abide by any terms
and conditions as fixed by the Court..
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the present petitioner has already spent in custody since
20.02.2021, which is more than two years.
7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the
bail prayer of the petitioner with the submission that the
petitioner belongs to outside Orissa.
8. 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
// 4 //
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."
9. 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
1981)3 SCC 671
// 5 //
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
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 facts and circumstances put forth as
well as period of detention, it is directed that let the
petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by
// 6 //
furnishing cash security/property security of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two local sureties each of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin
over the matter with further conditions that
i) he shall appear before the court below on
each date of posting of the case;
ii) he shall not indulge himself in any criminal
offence while on bail and
iii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner. .
12. It is made clear that the petitioner shall attend on the
date of the trial and shall not violate any of condition fixed
by the court in seisin over the matter.
13. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
14. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
