Orissa High Court
Ajit Patel vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 5 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3226 of 2025
Ajit Patel ........ Petitioner
Mr. Soumya Kanta Tripathy, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Smt. J. Sahoo
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
05.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR/ Dated Police Case No. and Sections
PR Station Courts' Name
No.
93 17.04.2023 Kalimela Spl. G.R. Case Section
No.114 of 2023 20(b)(ii)(C)
arising out of of NDPS
Kalimela P.S. Act
pending in the
court of learned
Sessions Judge-
cum-Special
Judge,
Malkangiri
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.114 of 2023 arising out of Kalimela P.S. No.93 of 2023
pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Malkangiri, 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 prosecution story in brief is that on 17.04.2023 at about
12.05 A.M., the S.I. of Kalimela P.S. and his staff were
performing patrolling duty in the Kalimela P.S. area. While
performing Patrolling duty, they saw one silver-colored car
coming from the Bhejangiwada side towards Kalimela Chhak at
high speed. The Police party intercepted the vehicle and on
being asked, the driver failed to produce DL and RC card.
During that time, they noticed a smell of ganja coming out from
the car, the S.I. arranged two local witness and conducted a
search of the car. On being asked, the apprehended persons
disclosed their names and addresses. On verification in the car,
the informant found jerry bags containing ganja weighing 21
kg.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had no knowledge of the transportation of the contraband
ganja. 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 17.04.2023 and the charge-sheet has already been filed.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioner be released on bail.
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
under trial 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
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
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.
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.
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for bail contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized
is greater than commercial quantity weighing 21 kilograms. In
such premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve
for 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, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner should be granted bail on furnishing Cash or
property surety of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
along with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter with some
stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper with
further conditions 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. It is made clear that if the charge sheet has not been filed, the
Petitioner shall not be released on bail by the court in seisin over
the matter.
15. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
