Orissa High Court
Prakash Khatua @ Mithun vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 24 April, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2356 of 2025
Prakash Khatua @ Mithun ........ Petitioner
Mr. Prasant Kumar Sahoo Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Mr. Pradipta Satapthy, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
24.04.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR/PR Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
0027 23.01.2025 Maitri T.R. Case Section
Vihar No.38 of 2025 20(b)(ii)(C)
corresponding of NDPS
to Maitri Act
Vihar P.S.
Case No.27 of
2025 pending
in the court of
learned
District and
Sessions
Judge-cum-
Special Judge,
Bhubaneswar
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with T.R. Case
No.38 of 2025 corresponding to Maitri Vihar P.S. Case No.27 of
2025 pending in the court of learned District and Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhubaneswar, has filed the present
application seeking release on bail. The case has been registered
for alleged offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.01.2025 at about 02:29
PM the informant Sankar Bhoi, SI of police, Maitri Vihar PS,
Bhubaneswar lodged a written report before the IIC, Maitri
Vihar, Bhubaneswar UPD alleging therein that on the same day
at about 08:56 AM after receiving information from a reliable
source that five persons including the Petitioner were standing
at the back side of the BMC, Wealth Centre, Hatiasuni waiting
for the customers to sell ganja which was carried on a bullet
bike and a scooty and thus the informant proceeded to the spot
as per the instruction to verify the veracity of information. It is
further stated that on the way he procured two independent
witnesses. After reaching the spot he found the Petitioner along
with others were standing there at the back side of the BMC,
wealth center having three numbers of jari bag. The informant
detained them and on being asked those persons disclosed their
names and then search was made complying all procedural
formalities after which he found all total 40 kgs of contraband
ganja from the Jari bags and seized the same. Hence, the F.I.R.
was lodged.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband ganja
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
contended that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever
with the alleged offences as claimed by the prosecution.
Furthermore, the petitioner has been in custody since 23.01.2025
and the co-accused persons have already been released on bail.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy
trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Therefore, keeping the petitioners in prolonged
custody without commencement or conclusion of trial is
unjustified and amounts to a violation of their fundamental
rights. 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. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
prolonged incarceration suffered by the petitioner entitles him
to be considered for the grant of bail. It is argued that the right
to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every
undertrial prisoner under Article 21 of the Constitution. This
principle has been repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, including in the case of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State
of Bihar1, wherein it was held that the State and, where
applicable, the complainant have an obligation to ensure that
criminal proceedings are conducted with reasonable
promptitude. In a country like India, where a significant portion
of the accused belong to economically and socially weaker
sections of society and often lack access to competent legal
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
assistance, the burden of delay should not be unjustly borne by
the accused. While a specific demand for a speedy trial by the
accused may strengthen the plea, the absence of such a demand
does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this
right.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v.
State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein the Court emphasized that
incarceration has particularly harsh and far-reaching
consequences for individuals from the weakest economic strata.
It leads to immediate loss of livelihood, disruption of family
structures, and social alienation. The Court observed that, in
such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention inflicts
irreparable harm--especially if the accused is ultimately
acquitted. Therefore, the judiciary must remain sensitive to
these consequences and ensure that trials, particularly those
arising under special statutes with stringent provisions, are
prioritized and concluded expeditiously.
9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail, contending that the quantity of ganja seized is well
above the threshold of commercial quantity as defined under
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
the Act, thereby attracting the statutory embargo on the grant of
bail.
10. Without entering into the merits of the case, and
considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration
of the petitioner's custody and as the co-accused persons have
already released on bail, it is directed that the petitioner be
released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing cash or
property surety of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the court in seisin over the matter with further stringent terms
and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court
seized of the matter, with the further condition that:-
i. The Petitioner shall appear before the local Police
Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM.
ii. The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any
criminal offence while on bail.
iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant
100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem,
tamarind, etc., around his village on government land,
community land, or private land in the possession of the
petitioner or his family members. In the event that
suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall
assist in identifying land for the plantation.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation
of the bail.
11. The I.I.C. of the concerned police station, in coordination
with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the
Petitioner has planted the saplings as required.
12. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit
before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have
been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants
for a period of two years.
13. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall
extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary
saplings.
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Signature
Sumitra Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 29-Apr-2025 18:33:13
