Orissa High Court
Baleswar Sukri @ vs State Of Odisha on 3 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.9170 of 2022
Baleswar Sukri @ .... Petitioner
Baleshwar Sukri @ Tulu
Rana
Mr. A. N. Pattanayak, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Sanjay Rath, A.S.C.
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 03.10.2023
Dated Police Case No. Sections
F.I.R.
Station and Courts'
No.
Name
0053 24.06.2020
Kundura T.R. Case Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
No.29 of N.D.P.S. Act.
2020 arising
out of
Kundura
P.S. Case
No.53 of
pending in
the Court of
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge -
Cum-
// 2 //
Special
Judge,
Jeypore
05. 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
Kundura P.S. Case No. 53 of 2020 corresponding to T.R.
Case No. 29 of 2020 pending in the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore
registered for the alleged commission of offence under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act has filed this petition
for his release on bail.
4. It is alleged that on 24.06.2020, the informant Shiva
Ranbida, S.I. of Police, Kundura Police Station, District of
Koraput and other staffs early morning while they were
returning from night patrolling at Balibeda, they notice
one while white colour Max pick up vehicle coming with a
great high speed from Ramgiri area. On suspicion they
tried to stop the said vehicle by showing hand signal but
the driver suddenly stopped seeing the police staffs from a
distance of 100 meter and started back but the police
// 3 //
personals chased him and with much difficulty. They were
able to detain at Blalibeda Chhak. During checking at that
spot at about 5.30 A.M. They detected one white colour
Mahendra Pick up Bolero bearing Regd. No. OD08D-6524
coming from Ramgiri side and going towards Jagdalpur
side. There was one occupant driver was present inside the
vehicle. On asked the name of the driver, he disclosed his
name and address. When the police personals went to the
back side of the dala, in the said vehicle found some jari
packets containing almond were loaded but when they
thoroughly checked among the said jari packets, found
some jari packets acute smell of ganja was coming out.
They recovered eights numbers of Jari bags containing 330
Kgs of Ganja from the exclusive and conscious possessions
of the present petitioner. The accused person could not
produce lawful authority for which possession and
transportation of said ganja. Therefore, police seized the
same after observing all formalities of search and seizure
provided on N.D.P.S. Act. On such, the I.I.C., Kundura P.S.
Registered the F.I.R.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a driver of that vehicle. The petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been
// 4 //
seized from his conscious possession. The petitioner has
no criminal antecedent. The investigation of the case has
been completed and charge sheet has been submitted. In
the event the petitioner is released 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
24.06.2020 which is more than three years and on the
earlier occasion also the petitioner has granted interim bail
and surrendered in time, the surrender certificate is kept
on record.
7. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the
bail prayer of the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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:
"Speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier
judgment dated 26th February, 1979, an essential
// 5 //
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
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
1981)3 SCC 671
// 6 //
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 submissions made and the factum of
release of the co-accused person, 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,
SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023
// 7 //
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.
12. 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
