Orissa High Court
Chintu Niriki vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 20 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.191 of 2025
Chintu Niriki .... Petitioner
Mr. Basudev Mishra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Saswat Das, AGA
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 20.01.2025
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
78 07.12.2019
Machhakund T.R No.39(A) of Section 21(b)(ii)(C)
2019 of the NDPS Act.
corresponding to
Machhakund P.S.
Case No.78 of
2019 pending in
the Court of
learned
Additional
Sessions Judge-
cum-Special
Judge, Koraput
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with T.R
No.39(A) of 2019 corresponding to Machhakund P.S. Case
No.78 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput registered for
the alleged commission of offence under Section
21(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, has filed this application for
his release on bail.
4. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on
07.12.2019 upon receiving information of the
transportation of Ganja by a Bolero car, the SI of Police,
Machhakund P.S. & other staff detained two vehicles in
connection with the same. The present petitioner was the
driver of the car. Contraband Ganja to the tune of 418 Kg
800 grams respectively were recovered from both the
vehicles.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
prosecution allegations leveled against the present
petitioner are false and baseless. The petitioner was caught
by the police on suspicion while he was driving in the
alleged vehicle from Machhkund to Lamtaput because of
non-availability of transportation facilities to remote areas.
Moreover, the petitioner has been languishing in custody
since 07.12.2019 to 28.05.2020. Then he released on bail on
28.05.2020 and, subsequently he was arrested on
31.05.2023 and still is in custody. In case he is released on
bail, he shall abide by any terms and conditions as
imposed on him.
6. He further contends that the 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. vrs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1, wherein the
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 entitles 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 Bihar2 wherein it has
been stated 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
1979 AIR 1360
(1981) 3 SCC 671
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)3 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 bail prayer of the Petitioner.
10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of
both the parties, without going into the merits of the case,
this Court directs the court in seisin over the matter to
release the present Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case
on some stringent terms and conditions with further
conditions that:
i. the Petitioner shall appear before the court in
seisin over the matter on each date of posting
of the case till conclusion of the trial;
ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any
criminal activities in future;
iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
iv. the Petitioner shall plant 100 saplings of local
variety like mango, neem, tamarind etc.
around his village over the Government land/
community land/ private land, if it is in the
possession of the Petitioner or his family
members.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail
cancellation of the bail.
11. The District Nursery/D.F.O shall extend the helping
hand by supplying the saplings to the Petitioner and the
Revenue Authority shall assist the Petitioner in identifying
the location for plantation of the saplings. If the land is not
available, the Petitioner to approach the Revenue
Authority for identifying the land for plantation and the
Revenue Authority shall do the needful.
12. 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 or not.
13. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall file
an affidavit after plantation of the saplings before the local
Police Station assuring that he will maintain those plants
for two years. The said affidavit also be produced before
the learned court below at the time of trial.
14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
