Orissa High Court

Sunil Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 25 April, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          BLAPL No.2480 of 2025

            Sunil Kumar Jena                          ........   Petitioner
                                            Mr. Sidhartha Sankar Ray (2), Adv.
                                 -Versus-

            State of Odisha                    ..........     Opposite Party
                                                Mr. Pradipta Satapthy, ASC

                       CORAM:
                       DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                                 ORDER

25.04.2025 Order No.

01.


            FIR/PR Dated        Police        Case No. and Sections
            No.                 Station       Courts' Name

            0391    16.08.2024 Badagada Special G.R.           Section
                                        Case No.56 of          20(b)(ii)(C)
                                        2024                   of NDPS
                                        corresponding          Act
                                        to Badagada
                                        P.S.      Case
                                        No.391       of
                                        2024 pending
                                        in the court of
                                        learned
                                        Special Judge,
                                        Bhanjanagar

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 Special G.R.

Case No.56 of 2024 corresponding to Badagada P.S. Case

No.391 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Special Judge,

Bhanjanagar, 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 16.08.2024, the

informant got an information regarding transportation of

contraband ganja on a motor cycle. Getting such information,

the police officials rushed into the spot and at about 7 A.M.

noticed one motor cycle bearing Registration No.OD-07U-8025

was coming from Soroda Side. When the motor cycle was

stopped, on seeing the police party the pillion rider managed to

escape from the spot. On being asked the rider of the motor

cycle disclosed his name as Sunil Kumar Jena and further stated

that the pillion rider Kanhu Charan das fled away from the

spot. On search of the jerry bag, net 21 kg and 200 grams of

contraband ganja was recovered. After completion of the

investigation. The contraband was seized from the present

Petitioner possession, leading to the registration of the present

case.

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 16.08.2024

and charge-sheet has already been submitted on 10.02.2025.

Accordingly, it is prayed that they 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 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 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

the Act, thereby attracting the statutory embargo on the grant of

bail.

SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.

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, it is directed that the petitioner 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 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 themselves 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.