Orissa High Court
Ramesh Ram 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.12895 of 2023
Ramesh Ram ........ Petitioner
Mr. J. K. Panda, 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. Station and
Courts'
Name
0064 18.11.2019 Mudulipada T.R. Case Section
No.141 of 20(b)(ii)(C
2019 )/25/27-
pending in A/29 of
the court of the NDPS
learned Act.
Additional
Sessions
Judge-
cum-
Special
Judge,
Malkangiri
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in Mudulipada P.S. Case
No.64 of 2019 corresponding to T.R. Case No.141 of 2019,
pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, registered for the
alleged commission of offence under Section
20(b)(ii)(C)/25/27-A/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, has filed this
petition for his release on bail.
4. It is alleged that on 17/18.11.2019 at about 12.55 A.M. the
S.I. of Mudulipada Police Station was performing patrolling
duty at S.H.-47 road of Kadamguda between Kairput to
Govindapalli and while they were going to Bhoiguda on the
way near Kadamguda Chhak found one Bolero was going
speedily from their back side by overtaking them
dangerously. So they chased the vehicle and stopped it. On
verification they found 'ganja' inside the plastic gunny bags.
After maintaining formalities of search and seizure, total 70
Kgs, 275 gms. Of commercial quantity of 'ganja' recovered
and registered the case and took up investigation.
5. 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
(1981) 3SCC 671
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
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 Cash or 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
Signature Not
Sumitra
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Jan-2024 17:37:43
