Orissa High Court

Muna @ Arjun Kar vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 5 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                          BLAPL No. 3256 of 2025

                                            Muna @ Arjun Kar             ....             Petitioners
                                                                         Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, Adv.

                                                                    -versus-
                                            State of Odisha              ....         Opposite Party
                                                                        Ms. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, ASC

                                                     CORAM:
                                                     DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                    Order                             ORDER
                                    No.                              05.05.2025

                                            F.I.R.    Dated        Police         Case No. and Sections
                                            No.                    Station        Courts' Name

                                            458       06.09.2022   Khandagiri     T.R.       Case   Section
                                                                                  No.346 of 2022    20(b)(ii)(C)
                                                                                  pending in the    of N.D.P.S.
                                                                                  court        of   Act.
                                                                                  learned     2nd
                                                                                  Additional
                                                                                  Sessions Judge,
                                                                                  Bhubaneswar

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner being in custody in connection with T.R.

Case No.346 of 2022 arising out of Khandagiri P.S. No.458 of

2022, pending in the court of the learned 2nd Additional

Designation: Personal Assistant

Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, registered for the alleged

commission of offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the

NDPS Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

4. The brief fact of the case is that on 6.9.2022 the Inspector

In-Charge of Khandagiri PS got information from Inspector

of Crime Unit regarding selling of ganja by the petitioners

along with other accused persons behind Cosmopolis

Apartment Dumduma, Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, AGP

Zone-Ill, Bhubaneswar was intimated and as per the

direction of the IIC, Khandagiri PS raid was conducted on

the spot wherein some persons were found to be seated

inside a NISSAN TERRANO Car bearing Regd. No. OD-14-

C-0075 and on interrogation they disclosed having Ganja

inside the dickey of the car. As they could not produce any

authority for possession of such ganja, four packets each

having 25 kg. of ganja in total 100 kg. of ganja were seized

from the dickey of the Car. On interrogation they admitted

that they had brought ganja from Digapahandi for selling at

Bhubaneswar. The present accused was inside the Car at the

time of raid contraband ganja and arms and ammunition

were seized from his possession. Hence, this case.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that nothing

has been seized from the conscious possession of the

present Petitioner. He further submits that the alleged ganja

Designation: Personal Assistant

Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 seized from the possession of the Petitioner is below the

commercial quantity. He further submits that the Petitioner

is in custody since 11.10.2022. Hence, he submits that, the

prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right

to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed to every

citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore,

continued incarceration of the petitioner for an extended

period without conclusion of trial is unjustified and

amounts to a violation of his 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. He further argues that the period of long incarceration

suffered, which entitle 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

Designation: Personal Assistant

Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 and again, in several judgments including that of Kadra

Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar 1wherein it has been held

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 a

significant majority of the accused belong to economically

and socially disadvantaged sections of society and often

lack awareness of legal rights or access to competent legal

assistance, the right to a speedy trial assumes even greater

importance. While in a given case, an accused person's

express demand for a speedy trial may weigh in their

favour, the absence of such a demand cannot be used to

deny or dilute their right. An accused cannot be deprived of

the protection guaranteed under the right to a speedy trial

merely because they did not expressly assert or insist upon

it.

8. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @

Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 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

(1981) 3SCC 671

Designation: Personal Assistant

Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 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

prayer for bail stating that the quantity of ganja seized is

clearly above the commercial quantity prescribed under the

Act which bars granting of bail.

10. Without going into the merit of the case and based on

the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period

of detention of the Petitioner in custody, it is directed that

the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case with

some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and

proper by the learned court in seisin over the matter with

further conditions that:-

i. the Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; and iii. the Petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon (between the months of July and August, 2025), shall plant 200 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

Designation: Personal Assistant

Date: 16-May-2025 17:38:46 members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying land for the plantation.