Orissa High Court
Manoj Ghosal vs State Of Odisha on 19 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.11168 of 2023
Manoj Ghosal .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.G.R.Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 19.10.2023
Dated Police Case No. Sections
F.I.R.
Station and Court's
No.
Name
141 05.10.2020
Mathili T.R. Case Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 &
No. 121 of 27(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
pending in
the court of
learned
Sessions
Judge-cum-
Special
Judge,
Malkangiri
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
// 2 //
3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with
Mathili P.S. Case No.141 of 2020 corresponding to T.R.
Case No.121 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, registered
for the alleged commission of offence under Section
20(b)(ii)(C)/ 25 & 27(a) of the NDPS Act has filed this
petition for his release on bail.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that on 05.10.2020 at about 8.05
A.M. when S.I. of Mathili P.S. along with other officials
staff was reached NH-326 near village Baldiguda they
found one Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.OR-10F-
8813 was coming from Pangam side in high speed. On
suspicion, the S.I. of Police and staff stopped the said
vehicle and occupants of the vehicle ran towards the
jungle area. On being searched, S.I. of Police found one
packet wrapped with adhesive polythene in a compressed
manner emitting out the smell of ganja. Due to non
production of authenticated document, the S.I. of Police
recovered and seized 30.500Kg of ganja from the exclusive
and conscious possession of the present petitioner along
with co-accused. After observing all formalities, all the
accused persons were arrested and forwarded them to the
court.
// 3 //
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is
no incriminating material available against the present
Petitioner to implicate him in the alleged offences. The
Petitioner is languishing in custody since 19.06.2023. He
further submits that the co-accused persons have already
been released on bail by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes 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 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
// 4 //
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
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.
1981)3 SCC 671
// 5 //
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 factum of
release of the co-accused persons, 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 any criminal
offence while on bail and
iii. he shall not tamper with the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses in any
manner.
SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023
// 6 //
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of the bail.
11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack
Date: 19-Oct-2023 21:01:50
