Orissa High Court
Ajit Patel @ Ajeet Patel vs State Of Odisha .......... Opposite ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.634 of 2025
Ajit Patel @ Ajeet Patel ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shyam Manohar, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .......... Opposite Party(s)
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
07.05.2025
Order No.
01.
FIR Dated Police Case No. and Courts' Sections
No. Station Name
0181 02.09.2022 Orkel G.R. Case No.136 of Sections
2022 arising out of 20(b)(ii)(C) of
Orkel P.S. Case NDPS Act,
No.181 of 2022 1985
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, currently in judicial custody in connection
with G.R. Case No.136 of 2022 arising out of Orkel P.S. Case
No.181 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, registered for alleged offences
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985, has filed the
present application seeking release on bail.
4. The brief fact of the case is on 01.09.2022 at 11:07 PM, the
complainant along with his staff while performing patrolling
duty at Balimela Chowk at 04.15 A.M. suspected MV checking
near jungle area road in between Balimela Chowk and
Khadikajodi one green colour passenger Auto came in high
speed from Dyke-III side. The police detained the said
passenger auto along with one person namely Ajeet Patel and
search was conducted. Mobile phone, Aadhar card, DL, and
cash was recovered and on search of the passenger auto 70 kgs
ganja was recovered. Thereafter, police arrested the accused
persons and registered a case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences as
claimed by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.09.2022 and out
of nine witnesses two witnesses has already been examined.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the Petitioners be released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy trial is a
fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a person in
custody for such a long time without any trial is not justified
and violative of his fundamental right. 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. 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
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
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
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.
9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh 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 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. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
