Orissa High Court
Bishnu @ Bhisma Khara vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 12 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 321 of 2025
Bishnu @ Bhisma Khara .... Petitioner
Mr. Pranab Kumar Das, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 12.05.2025
F.I.R. Dated Police Case No. and Sections
No. Station Courts' Name
72 4.03.2023 Orkel Spl. G.R. Case Section
No.68 of 2023 20(b)(ii)(c) of
pending in the the NDPS
court of ACT
learned
Sessions Judge-
cum-Special
Judge,
Malkangiri
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 Spl.
G.R. Case No.68 of 2023 arising out of Orkel P.S. Case No.72
of 2023, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge-
Designation: Personal Assistant
cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, 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 the SI of the police of the
Orkel P.S. lodged a written report alleging that some
persons were illegally transporting the huge quantity of
ganja from Malkanagiri area to other place. They ware
staging the same inside the jungle and waiting for the
vehicle there. The informant along with his staff
immediately proceeded to the spot. On seeing them, the
accused persons fled from the spot. However, they were
able to apprehend other two co-accused persons. But,
another one named Samara Madkami fled from the spot.
The accused persons who were arrested from the spot
disclosed the name of the present Petitioner from whom
they had procured the ganja. Thereafter, the informant
maintaining the official formalities and procedure seized
149 kg of the ganja from the spot in presence of the
witnesses. 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 Petitioner is
in custody since 04.05.2023. Hence, he submits that, the
prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed.
Designation: Personal Assistant
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
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
(1981) 3SCC 671
Designation: Personal Assistant
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
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,
Designation: Personal Assistant
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 delving into the intricacies of the case or the
merits of the allegations, and in light of the facts and
circumstances at hand, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner should be granted bail by the learned court in
seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case. However, such
release shall be conditioned upon stringent terms and
conditions, as the learned court deems fit and just with
further condition that:-
i. The Petitioner shall not indulge himself in any
criminal offence while on bail and appear before
the trial court on each date of posting of the matter.
ii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the
evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in
any manner.
iii. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon (in
between the month of July and August, 2025), 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.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Any violation of the above conditions shall result in the
cancellation of 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
Murmu
Designation: Personal Assistant
