Orissa High Court

Debanand Bag & Anr 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.2363 of 2025

            Debanand Bag & Anr.          ........     Petitioner (s)
                                              Mr. Akshaya 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

            121     30.01.2025 District     P.R.      Case   Section
                               Mobile       No.121/2024-     20(b)(ii)(B)
                               Unit,        2025             of NDPS
                               Nuapada      corresponding    Act
                                            to S.A. Case

                                            pending     in
                                            the court of
                                            learned
                                            Sessions
                                            Judge-cum-
                                            Special Judge,
                                            Nuapada

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

3. The petitioners are in custody in connection with P.R. Case

No.121/2024-2025 corresponding to S.A. Case No.04/2025

pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special

Judge, Nuapada, has filed the present application seeking

release on bail. The case has been registered for alleged offences

punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.2025 while the

informant along with other staffs were performing patrolling

duty in the local area, at that time, they found that two persons

were carrying some contraband article in a jery bag. It is also

alleged that after due formalities, when the informant along

with others verified the jari bag, they found that 12 k.g. of ganja

were transported by the present Petitioners. It is also alleged

that on being asked they were unable to produce any document

with regard possession of ganja and thereafter the informant

seized the contraband articles and also arrested they accused

persons at the spot.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners had no knowledge of the transportation of the

contraband ganja. It is contended that the petitioners have no

connection whatsoever with the alleged offences as claimed by

the prosecution. Furthermore, the petitioners have been in

custody since 30.01.2025 and the final P.R. has already been

submitted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioners be

released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 Petitioners 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

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

(1981) 3 SCC 671.

does not disentitle the accused from asserting a violation of this

right.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners 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.

10. Without entering into the merits of the case, and

considering the facts and circumstances as well as the duration

SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.

of the petitioners' custody, it is directed that the petitioners be

released on bail in the aforesaid case subject to stringent terms

and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned court

seized of the matter, with the further condition that:-

i. The Petitioners shall appear before the local Police

Station on every Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 PM.

ii. The Petitioners shall not indulge themselves in any

criminal offence while on bail.

iii. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or

intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

iv. The Petitioners, after the onset of monsoon, shall

plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango,

neem, tamarind, etc., around their village on government

land, community land, or private land in the possession

of the petitioner or their 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.