Orissa High Court
Chakradhara Patra vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 30 November, 2023
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.13337 of 2023
Chakradhara Patra .... Petitioner
Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.Gyana Ranjan Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 30.11.2023
Dated Police Case No. Sections
F.I.R.
Station and Courts'
No.
Name
84 20.11.2020 Raikia C.T. Case Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of
Police No.72 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Station 2020 arising
out of P.S.
Case No.84
of 2020
pending in
the Court of
learned
Special
Judge-cum-
Addl. Dist.
& Sessions
Judge,
Balliguda
Signature
01.Not Verified
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 2 //
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with C.T.
Case No.72 of 2020 corresponding to Raikia P.S. Case
No.84 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Special
Judge-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Baliguda for the alleged commission of offence under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 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 20.11.2020 the S.I. of
Raikia Police Station along with his staff proceeded to
Rammunda Chhaka with the direction of I.I.C., Raikia
Police Station to ascertain the information of
transportation of contraband articles by three persons. At
about 10.20 A.M, they found an Auto bearing Registration
No.OD-07-V-5019 approaching from Raikia. The police
personnel signaled the Driver of the said Auto to stop. The
Driver stopped the Auto. On being searched, they found
one big plastic bag on the bank side of the Auto. It is
further alleged that the driver admitted to have the
knowledge of possession of the contraband Ganja inside
the bag. The contraband Ganja weighing 24 kgs. 400 gms.
was seized in presence of the witnesses.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 3 //
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2020. Charge has been
framed in this case. The Petitioner was travelling in the
said Auto 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. Since another occupant and the
Auto Driver were there in the Auto, the Petitioner was
chance occupant of the contraband.
6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the
bail prayer of the Petitioner.
7. The Petitioner has already spent in custody for about more
than one year. 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
ingredient of 'reasonable, fair and just" procedure
guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 4 //
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 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.
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 by the learned
counsel for the parties, 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. 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.
11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Ayaskanta
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
