Orissa High Court
Amarjeet Kumar vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2761 of 2025
Amarjeet Kumar ........ Petitioner
Mr. Swaraj Patel, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Mr. Pradipta Satapthy, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
01.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR/PR Dated Police Case No. Sections
No. Station and Courts'
Name
0068 17.02.2025 Hemagiri Spl. G.R. Section
Case No.22 20(b)(ii)(B)
of 2025 of NDPS
arising out Act
of Hemagiri
P.R. No.68
of 2025
pending in
the court of
learned
District and
Sessions
Judge-cum-
Special
Judge,
Sundargarh
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 Spl. G.R. Case
No.22 of 2025 arising out of Hemagiri P.R. No.68 of 2025
pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband ganja
of 2 Kg 850 grams. 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 17.02.2025. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
Petitioner be released on bail.
6. 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
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.
7. 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
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
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.
8. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail.
9. 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 with 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall
extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary
saplings.
13. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
