Orissa High Court
Tikeswar Mahakur 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.3310 of 2025
Tikeswar Mahakur ........ Petitioner
Mr. Hemanta Kumar Mohanta, 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 Station Case No. Sections
PR and
No. Courts'
Name
159 28.10.2023 Jharpokharia 2(a) CC Case Section
No.18 of 2023 20(b)(ii)(C)
arising out of of NDPS
Jharpokharia Act
Excise P.S.
No.159 of
2023-24
pending in
the court of
learned
Special
Court-cum-1st
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Baripada
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 (a) CC Case
No.18 of 2023 arising out of Jharpokharia Excise P.S. No.159 of
2023-24 pending in the court of learned Special Court-cum-1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada, 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 28.10.2023, the
Inspector of Excise District Mobile Unit Mayurbhanj received an
information from the reliable source regarding illegal
transportation of contraband ganja in a Bolero Max Pick up
bearing Regd. No. OD-02-CJ-6676. Thereafter, they constituted
a team for raid and went to the Bombay Chhak. At about 7.10
A.M. morning, when the aforesaid vehicle came, they detained
the same. After search, they found four numbers of white basta
packed with contraband ganja. After verification of the white
basta, they found total 62 kg 860 gm. Thereafter, they seized all
the basta and sealed the same along with the alleged vehicle.
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 05.03.2025. 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
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
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
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
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
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 62 kg 860 grams.
In such premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not
deserve 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. 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.
14. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
