Orissa High Court
Mithilesh Kumar Dube vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 2 January, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.8633 of 2023
Mithilesh Kumar Dube .... Petitioner
Mr. T.N. Murty, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Gyanaranjan Mohapatra, ASC
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 02.01.2024
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
65 12.08.2020 Damanjodi T.R. Case No.46 Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of
of 2020 the N.D.P.S. Act.
pending in the
court of learned
Additional
Sessions Judge-
cum-Special
Judge, Koraput
01. 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
Damanjodi P.S. Case No.65 of 2020 corresponding to T.R.
Case No.46 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned
Designation: Personal Assistant Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput,
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 2 //
registered for the alleged commission of offence under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this
petition for his release on bail.
4. The allegation as made in the F.I.R. reveals that 453 Kg.
390 grams of Ganja kept in gunny bags was recovered and
seized from the two vehicles during course of patrolling
conducted by the S.I. of Police alongwith other staffs at
Marichamal Chowk. In both the vehicles there were five
occupants. The Petitioner was escorting the two vehicles
loaded with 'Ganja'. However, on failure on the part of the
Petitioner to produce any document or authority
regarding such possession and transportation, they seized
the contraband Ganja alongwith the vehicles.
5. He further submits that the Petitioner has been falsely
implicated in this case. Nothing has been seized from the
possession of the present Petitioner. He is in custody since
12.08.2020. Some co-accused persons who stand on similar
footing, have already been released on bail. He further
contends that the trial has not yet commenced.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that 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
Digitally Signed justified and violative of his fundamental right. The
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 3 //
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
the necessary expenditure needed for improving the
administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to
ensuring speedy trial."
7. 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
Designation: Personal Assistant
1981)3 SCC 671
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 4 //
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.
8. 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.
9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the
bail prayer of the Petitioner.
10. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court directs that the
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa
// 5 //
Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by
furnishing cash security/property surety of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees three lakhs) besides a bond of Rs.20,000/- with
two local solvent sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter
with further conditions that:
i. the Petitioner shall appear before the court in
seisin over the matter on each date of posting
of the case till completion of trial;
ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge in any
criminal activities in future;
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
