Anil Yadav vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 11252 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                      BLAPL No.12517 of 2022

          Anil Yadav                 ....                 Petitioner
                                      Mr. R. L. Pattnaik, Advocate

                                 -versus-
          State of Odisha             ....           Opposite Party
                                            Mr.G.R.Mohapatra,ASC.

                  CORAM:
                  DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

  Order                           ORDER
  No.                            14.09.2023

          Dated        PoliceCase No.           Sections
F.I.R.                 Station  and
 No.                          Courts'
                               Name
0021 31.01.2021

Boipariguda T.R. case 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.

No. 07 of

pending in the court of learned District & Sessions Judge-

cum-

Special Judge, Koraput at Jeypore

// 2 //

03. 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

Boipariguda P.S. case No.21 of 2021 corresponding to T.R.

case No.07 of 2021 pending in the court of the learned

District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput at

Jeypore, registered for the alleged commission of offence

under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) 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 31.01.2021while the

Police personnel of Boipariguda Police station being led by

a Sub Inspector were discharging patrolling duty and M.V.

checking duty at about 11.45 a.m., they noticed a white

colour vehicle viz. TATA Xenon Yodha+ pick up bearing

registration no.OD-10-E-6545 -3095 coming from

Tanginiguda side towards Boipariguda. Seeing the police

personnel the vehicle took a sudden turn and started

fleeing with high speed. On suspicion, the police officials

detained the vehicle and recovered 8 numbers of

polythene packets on its back side carrier (dala), from

which acute smell of ganja was coming out. The Police

// 3 //

officials seized 193 Kgs of contraband 'ganja' after

observing all formalities of search and seizure. 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 31.01.2021. 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

31.01.2021which 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

case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs Home Secretary,

// 4 //

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

versed with laws and after face the dearth of competent

1981)3 SCC 671

// 5 //

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

furnishing cash security/property security of Rs. 2,00,000/-

SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023

// 6 //

(Rupees two lakhs) 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. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

13. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

(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