Orissa High Court
Rabilal Murmu vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3317 of 2025
Rabilal Murmu ........ Petitioner
Mr. Amit Biswal, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party
Mr. Pradipta Satpathy, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
06.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR/ Dated Police Case No. and Sections
PR Station Courts' Name
No.
291 20.02.2025 Nilgiri Spl. Case No.37 of Section
2025 arising out of 20(b)(ii)(C)
Nilgiri Excise P.R. of NDPS
Case No.291 of 2024- Act
25 pending in the
court of learned
District Judge-cum-
Special Judge,
Balasore
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. Case
No.37 of 2025 arising out of Nilgiri Excise P.R. Case No.291 of
2024-25 pending in the court of learned District Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Balasore, 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 20.02.2025 morning
the OIC of Niigiri Excise Station was conducting patrolling duty
along with some other excise staff. At about 10.30 am near Sani
temple at Baiigohiri, the OIC noticed the accused standing
holding a jari sack. Seeing the patrolling team, the accused
became anxious and tried to fled away from spot but, the excise
officials garbed him. On search of his jari sack, ganja was found
weighing of 23 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 20.02.2025. 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
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
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.
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
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 contending that the quantity of contraband ganja seized
is greater than commercial quantity weighing 23 kg. In such
premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve for
bail.
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
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, 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 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 trial court on each
date of posting of the case.
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 each of local varieties, such as mango, neem,
tamarind, etc., around their 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.
Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Sumitra
Date: 19-May-2025 15:34:40
