Orissa High Court
Anil Duria vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 3 January, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.13125 of 2023
Anil Duria ........ Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Nanda, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Mr. D. Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
03.01.2024
Order No.
02.
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Stationand
Courts'
Name
0066 27.07.2020 Semiliguda T.R. Case Section
No.43 of 20(b)(ii)(C)
2020 /29 of the
pending in NDPS Act.
the court
of learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge-
cum-
Special
Judge,
Koraput
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Semiliguda P.S. Case
No.66 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No.43 of 2020,
pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput, registered for the alleged
commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the
N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner along with nine other
persons were carrying contraband ganja in a Max Pickup
vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-10-H-1074 with intent to
handover the same to another vehicle i.e. Eicher vehicle
bearing Regd. No.HR-55R-3106 stranded in an isolated place
on the road. At that time, the police having received reliable
information stopped the vehicle, but all the occupants of the
vehicles fled away from the spot. The Police after observing
all formalities of search and seizure as enshrined in NDPS
Act recovered and seized 921 Kg. of contraband 'ganja' and
registered the case and took up investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The
petitioner who had absconded from the spot was remanded
in this case on 12.07.2022 when he was in custody in
connection with another case. The petitioner is languishing in
jail custody since 30.07.2020. Some co-accused persons who
are similarly situated with the Petitioner have already been
released on bail by order dated 22.06.2022 in BLAPL No.5249
of 2022, 03.02.2021 in BLAPL No.6001 of 2020 and 16.02.2022
in BLAPL No.7336 of 2021. Though charge sheet has been
submitted in the case since long the trial has not yet
commenced.
6. 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, 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."
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 Bihar 1wherein it has been held
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. 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
(1981) 3SCC 671
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
prayer for bail of the Petitioner.
10. Let the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case
on furnishing of property surety of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one
lakh only) along with two local solvent sureties each for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the
matter with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed
just and proper with further conditions that:
i. the petitioner shall appear before the court 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 activity in
future;
iii. the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in any manner;
11. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of the bail.
12. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands allowed.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Jan-2024 17:37:43
