Orissa High Court
Ajaya Devanand Gadpayle vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Parties on 9 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
s
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.3710 of 2025
Ajaya Devanand Gadpayle ........ Petitioner
Mr. Mahes Das, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Parties
Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
09.05.2025
Order No.
01.
F.I.R Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections
No. Courts' Name
74 10.10.2021 Tumudibandha C.T Case No.58 U/S.
of 2021 pending 20(b)(ii)(C)
in the Court of of the
learned Special NDPS Act
Judge-cum-
Additional
Sessions Judge,
Balliguda
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with
Tumudibandha P.S. Case No.74 of 2021, corresponding to C.T Case
No.58 of 2021, pending in the court learned Special Judge-cum-
Additional Sessions Judge, Balliguda, 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.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 10.10.2021, the S.I
of Tumudibandha P.S. lodged an F.I.R to the effect that after getting
information about transportation of Ganja by one person in a TATA
truck, he went to the spot along with other staffs near Jalespata
Bridge. Then after some time they saw a red colour truck was
coming. Then they detained the truck which was driven by the
present petitioner. On search, the police team found 5 numbers of
bags containing Ganja. On being weighed the Ganja contained in all
the five bags comes to 231 Kgs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been languishing in custody since 10.10.2021 and the
charge sheet has been submitted on 06.04.2022. He further submits
that as against total 21 prosecution witnesses, only 10 have been
examined, and, therefore, the trial is not expected to be so soon. He
further submits that for such long detention of the Petitioner in
custody when the trial is progressing at a snail's space and no such
step is being taken by the prosecution to expedite the same, further
detention of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. Therefore,
learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the bail application of
the petitioner may be favourbaly considered and he may be
allowed to go on bail in the interest of justice.
5. 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 under Article 21 of
the Constitution. Therefore, keeping the petitioners in prolonged
custody without commencement or conclusion of trial is unjustified
and amounts to a violation of their 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."
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 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
(1981) 3 SCC 671.
SLP (Crl.) No.915 of 2023.
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.
9. Without going into the merit of the case and considering
the facts and submission made; prayer of the petition is allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in
connection with the above mentioned case subject them furnishing
a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) with two local
solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in
seisin over the matter, who shall be at liberty to impose such other
suitable 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 till
conclusion of the trial without fail;
ii. the Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any
criminal offence while on bail;
iii. the Petitioner shall appear before the local
P.S. i.e. at Uppalwadi P.S. in the District of
Nagpur, Maharastra and report the I.O. once
in a week i.e. on every Monday in between 10
am to 2 pm.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to
the cancellation of the bail.
10. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
